In an April 3, 2014 ruling, Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Peck’s Report and Recommendation after an inquest awarding $1 million in statutory damages and approximately $10,000 in attorneys’ fees against the defendants who defaulted in the plaintiff’s trademark infringement action. Judge Daniels approved Judge Peck’s conclusion deeming the infringement willful in light of the default. Since the maximum statutory damages award under the Lanham Act is $2 million, the Court adopted Judge Peck’s conclusion that “an award of $1 million – half of the statutory maximum – is sufficient and appropriate in this case.” With regard to attorneys’ fees, Judge Daniels adopted Judge Peck’s conclusion that “the allegations in the complaint, along with Defendants’ default, are sufficient to justify the award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff,” and approved the reduction of 15% that Judge Peck made to the amount of fees the plaintiff sought.
for the Southern District of New York
Court Adopts Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation of Statutory Damages and Attorneys’ Fees after Default in Trademark Infringement Action
In an April 3, 2014 ruling, Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Peck’s Report and Recommendation after an inquest awarding $1 million in statutory damages and approximately $10,000 in attorneys’ fees against the defendants who defaulted in the plaintiff’s trademark infringement action. Judge Daniels approved Judge Peck’s conclusion deeming the infringement willful in light of the default. Since the maximum statutory damages award under the Lanham Act is $2 million, the Court adopted Judge Peck’s conclusion that “an award of $1 million – half of the statutory maximum – is sufficient and appropriate in this case.” With regard to attorneys’ fees, Judge Daniels adopted Judge Peck’s conclusion that “the allegations in the complaint, along with Defendants’ default, are sufficient to justify the award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff,” and approved the reduction of 15% that Judge Peck made to the amount of fees the plaintiff sought.
Labels:
12 Civ. 9190
,
Attorneys’ Fees
,
Default
,
Judge Daniels
,
Statutory Damages
,
Trademark Infringement
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Labels
05 Civ. 390
(
1
)
09 Civ. 10112
(
1
)
09 Civ. 528
(
1
)
10 Civ. 3734
(
1
)
10 Civ. 7246
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1001
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1594
(
1
)
11 Civ. 4985
(
1
)
11 Civ. 6808
(
1
)
12 Civ 5071
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3699
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3810
(
1
)
12 Civ. 4919
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5070
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5230
(
1
)
12 Civ. 6283
(
2
)
12 Civ. 779
(
1
)
12 Civ. 7902
(
1
)
12 Civ. 9260
(
1
)
12 Civ. 95
(
1
)
13 Civ. 1787
(
1
)
13 Civ. 684
(
1
)
ACPA
(
1
)
Advice of Counsel
(
1
)
Affirmative Defense
(
3
)
ANDA
(
2
)
Anonymity
(
2
)
Attorneys' Fees
(
18
)
Bifurcation
(
1
)
Breach of Contract
(
2
)
Case or Controversy
(
2
)
Contempt
(
2
)
Copyright
(
9
)
Copyright Infringement
(
76
)
Counterfeiting
(
4
)
Damages
(
7
)
Declaratory Judgment
(
7
)
Default Judgment
(
2
)
Federal Circuit
(
2
)
First Sale Doctrine
(
1
)
Fraud
(
1
)
Fraudulent Concealment
(
1
)
Infringement Contentions
(
3
)
Interlocutory Appeal
(
4
)
Judge Abrams
(
5
)
Judge Buchwald
(
3
)
Judge Castel
(
8
)
Judge Cedarbaum
(
1
)
Judge Daniels
(
4
)
Judge Dolinger
(
2
)
Judge Forrest
(
16
)
Judge Gardephe
(
5
)
Judge Hellerstein
(
4
)
Judge Oetken
(
5
)
Judge Preska
(
4
)
Judge Ramos
(
1
)
Judge Schofield
(
5
)
Judge Sullivan
(
12
)
Moot
(
4
)
Motion to Quash
(
2
)
Patent
(
1
)
Patent Infringement
(
56
)
Preliminary Injunction
(
4
)
Reasonable Royalty
(
2
)
Renewal
(
1
)
Safe Harbor
(
1
)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(
5
)
Summary Judgment
(
8
)
Trademark
(
2
)
Trademark Infringement
(
42
)
Willfulness
(
6
)
The general information and thoughts posted to this blog are provided only as an informational service to the web community and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. Nothing on this blog is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and nothing posted constitutes legal advice. You should understand that the posts by the author, who is an attorney at U.S. law firm Allegaert, Berger & Vogel, may or may not reflect the views of that firm and that the author of this blog is only authorized to practice law in the jurisdictions in which he is properly licensed to do so. For additional information, click here.