Clerk denies plaintiff's request for default judgment in 'Who Dat' case
A federal Clerk of Court has denied a plaintiffs' motion for default judgments against three defendants they claim have failed to respond to their lawsuit over ownership of the term "Who Dat."
Who Dat? Inc., run by brothers Sal and Steve Monistere, is suing the National Football League (NFL), NFL Properties (NFLP), the New Orleans Saints, Liquid Ventures Inc., Logo Express Marketing Inc., Monogram Express, Storyville Apparel, and Fleurty Girl for alleged misappropriation of the phrase Who Dat on their merchandise.
In a motion filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Who Dat Inc. requested default judgement against Liquid Ventures, Logo Express and Monogram express.
The motion claimed the Clerk "should enter a default against Defendants as a result of their failure to file their respective answers within 21 days after service."
New Orleans attorney Brandon Frank and Texas attorneys Ricardo Cedillo and Troy Glander filed the motion on behalf of Who Dat? Inc. on March 1.
U.S. District Clerk of Court Loretta Whyte denied the motion on March 11.
District Judge Carl Barbier is overseeing this case.
In January, Barbier allowed for counterclaims filed by Fleurty Girl, Storyville and Who Dat Yat Chat Cafe to continue in this litigation.
New Orleans attorney Mark Edwards is representing Storyville.
On Oct. 27, he filed a defense and counterclaim against WDI.
The counterclaim states that the phrase "Who Dat" has "been applied to many sporting contests...for many decades before 1983" and that WDI "has abandoned any trademark rights it may have ever had in WHO DAT? By non-use and non-exclusive use for a significant period of time."
The Storyville counterclaim also alleges that WDI violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA).
New Orleans attorney Ernest Svenson is representing Fleurty Girl.
New Orleans attorney Darleen Jacobs is representing Who Dat Yat Chat.