In a Memorandum & Order dated May 21, 2009 ("M&O"), I granted plaintiff's application for permanent injunctive relief. M&O 24‐25, Docket Entry 222. In accordance with my M&O, plaintiff has submitted a proposed injunction, Docket Entry 227, which defendants oppose on the ground that it is unnecessary, Docket Entry 228. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's proposed permanent injunction shall be entered as an order of the court. Defendants contend that a permanent injunction is not warranted because defendants are no longer in business. Docket Entry 228. More specifically, defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to make the required showing of a threat of continuing infringement, as noted in Motorola v. Abeckaser, 2009 WL 962809, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2009), because Star Mark closed its business several years ago. Id. Defendants' self‐ serving argument that they pose no threat of future infringement is without merit. As stated in my M&O, I have already concluded that "defendant Zhan's long involvement in the business of importing foods, his repeated run‐ins with infringement claims, and his lack of candor when testifying at trial, sufficiently demonstrate the threat of a continuing violation." M&O 25. Accordingly, I find that permanent injunctive relief is warranted. Defendants do not object to any particular language or terms of the proposed injunction. See Docket Entry 228. Accordingly, a permanent injunction in the form proposed by plaintiff shall be entered. Plaintiff is directed to submit a revised proposed Permanent Injunction and Order that deletes all references to any stipulations by the parties or the consent of the defendants. Once filed, it will be entered by the court.