From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rolls-Royce PLC v. Rolls-Royce USA, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Feb 17, 2010
09-CV-1381 (RRM) (VVP) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2010)

Summary

holding that despite "strong evidence of willfulness" the $100,000.00 per mark per type of good requested by plaintiffs was unreasonable and without sound basis

Summary of this case from AW Licensing, LLC v. Wang Bao

Opinion

09-CV-1381 (RRM) (VVP).

February 17, 2010


ORDER


By Motion filed May 28, 2009, Plaintiffs moved for default judgment. By Order entered May 29, 2009, this Court referred that motion to the assigned Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Viktor V. Pohorelsky, for a Report and Recommendation. On January 27, 2010, Judge Pohorelsky issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R R") recommending that (1) Plaintiffs' motion be granted; (2) Plaintiff Rolls-Royce plc be awarded damages of $1,000,000; (3) Plaintiff Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited be awarded damages of $1,000,000; and that (4) Defendant be permanently enjoined from using Plaintiffs' name and trademarks for commercial purposes. Judge Pohorelsky reminded the parties that, pursuant to Rule 72(b), any objection to the R R was due February 10, 2010. No party has filed any objection.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the Court has reviewed the R R for clear error and, finding none, concurs with the R R in its entirety. See Covey v. Simonton, 481 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is GRANTED;
(2) Plaintiff Rolls-Royce plc is awarded damages of $1,000,000;
(3) Plaintiff Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited is awarded damages of $1,000,000;
(4) Defendant, Rolls-Royce USA, Inc., and its officers, agents, employees, servants, successors and assigns, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them are permanently enjoined from:
a. using the name "Rolls-Royce USA, Inc.," the marks ROLLS-ROYCE USA and RR, or any other reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation of the Rolls-Royce Marks or any of them, in any manner in connection with the conduct of its business, website or domain name, either alone or in conjunction with other words; and
b. making any other representation or taking any other action that may lead the public to believe that the business being conducted by Defendant under the name Rolls-Royce USA, Inc. is the business of Plaintiffs or of any of their authorized representatives, or is in any way affiliated or connected therewith;
(5) Defendant, Rolls-Royce USA, Inc., and its officers, agents, employees, servants, successors and assigns, and all other persons in active concert or participation with them shall:
a. obliterate, delete and remove the said corporate and business title and the names and marks "Rolls-Royce," and "RR" from its website, business offices, stationery, telephone and other listings, signs, advertising, promotional material and wherever else the same appear and to destroy or to surrender to Plaintiff any and all materials, including, but not limited to all clothing and apparel in their possession or subject to its control wherein the names "ROLLS-ROYCE" and the other Rolls-Royce Marks may appear; and
b. change its corporate name and to cause the cancellation, withdrawal or amendment of all filings, licenses and permits issued by or with federal, state or local governmental authorities or agencies so as to omit the names "Rolls-Royce," and the Rolls-Royce Marks or any of the them, or any reproduction, copy, counterfeit or colorable imitation thereof, from their business or corporate titles.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rolls-Royce PLC v. Rolls-Royce USA, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Feb 17, 2010
09-CV-1381 (RRM) (VVP) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2010)

holding that despite "strong evidence of willfulness" the $100,000.00 per mark per type of good requested by plaintiffs was unreasonable and without sound basis

Summary of this case from AW Licensing, LLC v. Wang Bao

directing the defendants to "destroy or to surrender to Plaintiff any and all materials . . . wherein . . . Rolls-Royce Marks may appear."

Summary of this case from Ampion Corp. v. AXXA Tech., Inc.

directing the defendants to "destroy or to surrender to Plaintiff any and all materials . . . wherein . . . Rolls-Royce Marks may appear."

Summary of this case from Buffalo Transp., Inc. v. Frezer Bezu

directing the defendants to "destroy or to surrender to Plaintiff any and all materials . . . wherein . . . Rolls-Royce Marks may appear."

Summary of this case from Healthnow N.Y. Inc. v. Romano
Case details for

Rolls-Royce PLC v. Rolls-Royce USA, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ROLLS-ROYCE plc and ROLLS-ROYCE MOTOR CARS LIMITED, Plaintiffs, v…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 2010

Citations

09-CV-1381 (RRM) (VVP) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2010)

Citing Cases

Healthnow N.Y. Inc. v. Romano

A court therefore has the power to enjoin defendants from engaging in further acts of trademark infringement…

Buffalo Transp., Inc. v. Frezer Bezu

A court therefore has the power to enjoin a defendant from engaging in further acts of trademark infringement…