United States District Court, E.D. New York
March 26, 2014
J. TAIKWOK YUNG d/b/a WEB-ADVISO, pro se, Plaintiff,
DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant.
SUMMARY ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DORA L. IRIZARRY, District Judge.
On February 28, 2013, this Court granted summary judgment against the pro se plaintiff counter claim defendant J. Taiwok Yung d/b/a Web-Adviso ("Plaintiff"), concluding that Plaintiff had violated the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), through his ownership of four domain names that intentionally exploited the trademarked surname of defendant-counterclaim plaintiff Donald J. Trump ("Defendant"). ( See Opinion & Order, Dkt. Entry No. 56.) Defendant then moved for statutory damages ( see Defendant's Motion for Damages, Dkt. Entry No. 58), which this Court referred to the Honorable Viktor V. Pohorelsky, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Amid briefing on that motion, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a sur-reply brief. ( See Plaintiff's Motion for Leave, Dkt. Entry No. 73.)
On February 28, 2014, Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky issued a R&R, which recommended: (1) denying Plaintiff's request for leave to file a sur-reply brief; and (2) granting Defendant's Motion for Damages; (3) awarding Defendant $8, 000 per infringing domain name, for a total judgment of $32, 000; and (4) ordering Plaintiff to transfer his interest in the domain names trumpmumbai.com, trumpindia.com, trumpbeijing.com, and trumpabudhabi.com to the Defendant. ( See R&R, Dkt. Entry No. 75.) On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. ( See Plaintiff's Objections ("Obj."), Dkt. Entry No. 77.) For the reasons set forth below, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
Where a party objects to an R & R, a district judge must make a de novo determination with respect to those portions of the R & R to which the party objects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If, however, a party makes conclusory or general objections, or attempts to relitigate the party's original arguments, the court will review the R & R for clear error. Robinson v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, 2012 WL 123263, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2012) (quoting Walker v. Vaughan, 216 F.Supp.2d 290, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). The district court may then "accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff's objections are nothing more than an attempt to relitigate the issues he briefed during summary judgment and are void of any arguments as to why the recommendations contained in the R&R should be rejected or modified. The Court has reviewed the R&R's wellreasoned and detailed analysis for clear error and has found none. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Upon due consideration, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief is denied. Defendant is awarded $8, 000 per infringing domain name, for a total judgment of $32, 000. Plaintiff is ordered to transfer his interest in the domain names trumpmumbai.com, trumpindia.com, trumpbeijing.com, and trumpabudhabi.com to Defendant. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).