Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nike, Inc. v. Fujian Jialaimeng Shoes Co., Ltd.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 30, 2019

NIKE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
FUJIAN JIALAIMENG SHOES CO., LTD, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge

         Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 33), in which Magistrate Judge Foley recommends that the Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 30), filed by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. (“Plaintiff) be granted. Plaintiff timely filed a limited Objection to the R&R, (ECF No. 35). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs Objection is SUSTAINED and Judge Foley's R&R is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in part.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff brings this trademark infringement action against Defendants Fujian Jialaimeng Shoes Co., Ltd. and Daeast-Asia (Fujian) Sports Production Co., Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”). In light of Defendants' failure to appear in this action, Plaintiff obtained a clerk's entry of default, (ECF No. 28), and subsequently filed their Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 30). Judge Foley recommends that default judgment be granted in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, and an injunction be issued as to Defendants. (Id. 9:18-22).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         This 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). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id.

         III. DISCUSSION

         In its limited Objection, Plaintiff asserts that while Judge Foley found in their favor and recommends default judgment against Defendants, Judge Foley “did not appear to address all of [Plaintiffs] requests for relief.” (Obj. 3:12, ECF No. 35). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the R&R does not address Plaintiffs requests for: (a) an award of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants' infringement; (b) an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (c) the return of the $25, 000 deposit Nike tendered to secure a preliminary injunction in this case. (Id. 2:10-16).

         Based upon this apparent omission, Plaintiff seeks the following relief form the Court: (1) adoption of the R&R to the extent is recommends entering default judgment and issuing a permanent injunction; and (2) granting Plaintiffs additional relief included in the Motion for Default Judgment. (Id. 4:6-10).

         Upon review of Plaintiff's underlying Motion, as well as Judge Foley's R&R, the Court concludes the lack of a recommendation as to Plaintiff's other forms of requested relief was a mere oversight, and not intentional. As Plaintiff points out, the R&R's recommended permanent injunctive relief “makes clear that Defendants were not ‘wrongfully enjoined, '” and thus are entitled to a return of their bond under Rule 65(c). (Id. 3:22-25). Additionally, the R&R expressly considers the “sum of money at stake” prong of the default-judgment factors and notes that Plaintiffs seek monetary relief. (R&R 6:8-13). The incongruity of that analysis with the non-monetary relief granted, further satisfies the Court that a full grant of Plaintiff s requested remedies was contemplated.

         Judge Foley made express findings that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated claims for patent infringement, trademark infringement under §32(1) of the Lanham Act, false designation of origin/unfair competition under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, dilution under § 43(c) of the Lanham Act, and common law trademark infringement. (R&R 3:27-6:6). Given that Judge Foley has already considered the relevant factors supporting default judgment, and particularly made findings as the sums of money at stake, (Id. 6:8-13), the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), 35 U.S.C. § 289, as well as attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and 35 U.S.C. § 285, as requested. Additionally, given Judge Foley's comprehensive analysis on the propriety of a permanent injunction-with which the Court agrees-Plaintiff is entitled to a return of its $25, 000 bond.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 30), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in part. The order is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as to Judge Foley's recommendation that Plaintiff be granted default judgment and is entitled to permanent injunctive relief against Defendants.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 30), is GRANTED.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection, (ECF No. 35), is SUSTAINED. Specifically, the relief Plaintiff requested in its Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.