United States District Court, D. Nevada
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 33), which states that the pending Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 31), should be granted.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct "any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 33), is ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 31), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be awarded judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. Statutory damages in the amount of $100, 000.00;
2. Post-judgment interest on the principal sum at the statutory judgment rate from the date of entry of the judgment until paid in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Defendants, as well as their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, confederates, attorneys, and all those in active concert or participation with them are hereby permanently enjoined from:
1. Using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the TOYO Marks (as defined in the Complaint) in commerce including, without limitation: (a) by selling, offering for sale, distributing, promoting, or advertising any good or service in connection with such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the TOYO Marks; or (b) by displaying any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the TOYO Marks in the United States;
2. Representing directly or indirectly, in any form or manner whatsoever, that any products or services offered for distribution or sale by Defendants are related to, affiliated with, approved by or sponsored by Plaintiffs or committing any other acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendants' products and services or that Defendants' business is that of Plaintiffs' or somehow related to Plaintiffs, and from otherwise competing unfairly with Plaintiffs in any manner;
3. Making any use of the TOYO Marks or confusingly similar variations thereof, alone or in combination with any other letters, words, letter strings, phrases or designs, in commerce or in connection with any business or for any purpose whatsoever (including, but not ...