United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
SOLA FRANCHISE CORPORATION and SOLA SALON STUDIOS, LLC Plaintiffs,
SOLO SALON STUDIOS INC., Defendant.
For Plaintiffs: William Davis Foley, Esq., Joseph N. Froehlich, Esq.
For Defendant: No appearances.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant plaintiffs Sola Franchise Corporation and Sola Salon Studios, LLC’s (“Plaintiffs”) pending motion for default judgment against defendant Solo Salon Studios Inc. (“Defendant”) and order other, related injunctive relief against Defendant. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
Plaintiff commenced this action on February 12, 2014 against Defendant, asserting claims for (1) trademark infringement and false designation of origin under Section 32 and 34 of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946 (the “Lanham Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), 1125(a); (2) dilution under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and New York General Business Law § 360-1; (3) unfair competition and trademark infringement under New York common law; and (4) unfair and deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349.
On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed an affidavit of service, affirming that the Summons and Complaint were served on Defendant through the Secretary of State on February 14, 2014. (Docket Entry 4.) Defendant did not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, and Plaintiffs requested a Certificate of Default on April 1, 2014. (Docket Entry 7.) That same day, the Clerk of the Court certified Defendant’s default. (Docket Entry 8.) On May 20, 2014, Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. (Docket Entry 9.) On May 27, 2014, the undersigned referred Plaintiffs’ motion to Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for a report and recommendation as to whether the pending motion should be granted. (Docket Entry 10.)
On February 9, 2015, Judge Tomlinson issued her R&R. (Docket Entry 14.) The R&R recommends that the undersigned issue an order: (1) granting default judgment against Defendant on the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth, but not the fifth, causes of action of the Complaint; (2) permanently enjoining Defendants from using the “Solo Salon Studios” name and engaging or participating in any other infringing activity; (3) directing Defendant to deactivate its website and any social media profile(s) or account(s) Defendant has established which bear the name “Solo Salon Studios”; and (4) ordering Defendant to deliver for destruction any infringing advertising. (R&R at 2, 36.)
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the “court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Objections were due within fourteen days of service of the R&R. The time for filing objections has expired, and no party has objected. Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed to have been waived.
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds Judge Tomlinson’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.
Judge Tomlinson’s R&R is ADOPTED in its entirety and Plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment against Defendant (Docket Entry 14) is ...