From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. C.H. Rhodes, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Apr 19, 2010
08-CV-0069 (ARR) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2010)

Opinion

08-CV-0069 (ARR) (CLP).

April 19, 2010


ORDER


The court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated March 26, 2010 from the Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, the court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. See Advisory Comm. Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); accord Edwards v. Town of Huntington, No. 05 Civ. 339 (NGG) (AKT), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50074, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007); McKoy v. Henderson, No. 05 Civ. 1535 (DAB), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15673, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2007). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I hereby adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff is awarded a total of $1,000,000 in statutory damages, $350.00 in costs, and a permanent injunction enjoining defendant from using the counterfeit Marlboro® trademarks. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Despite a typographical error on page two of Magistrate Judge Pollak's Report and Recommendation describing the recommended statutory damages, the reasoning and conclusion of the Report and Recommendation, on pages 9 to 14, are clear that $1,000,000 in statutory damages was awarded.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. C.H. Rhodes, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Apr 19, 2010
08-CV-0069 (ARR) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2010)
Case details for

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. C.H. Rhodes, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., Plaintiff, v. C.H. RHODES, INC., et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Apr 19, 2010

Citations

08-CV-0069 (ARR) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2010)

Citing Cases

Nike, Inc. v. E. Ports Custom Brokers, Inc.

"In order to establish a violation of Section 42, 'a trademark owner need only prove that the defendant…