Roor International BV et al v. Ocean Shore Food Mart, Inc. , et al
ORDER adopting 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 16 MOTION for default judgment against All Defendants filed by Roor International BV, Sream, Inc. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 10/8/2019. (ctp)(JLC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ROOR INTERNATIONAL BV; and
Case No. 6:19-cv-39-Orl-37LRH
OCEAN SHORE FOOD MART, INC.;
and ASKANDER MIRZA,
Plaintiffs Roor International BV and Sream, Inc. sued Defendants Ocean Shore
Food Mart, Inc. and Askander Mirza alleging they have been infringing on Plaintiffs’
“RooR” trademark in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs
successfully obtained an entry of default against Defendants. (Docs. 10, 11, 14, 15.) Now,
Plaintiffs request default judgment against Defendants, damages, and a permanent
injunction. (Doc. 16 (“Motion”).) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Leslie R. Hoffman
recommends granting the Motion in part. (Doc. 17 (“R&R”).) Specifically, Magistrate
Judge Hoffman recommends: (1) entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on all claims; (2)
awarding Plaintiffs $15,671.60 in damages and costs; (3) granting Plaintiff’s proposed
permanent injunction; (4) ordering items bearing “RooR” marks in Defendants’ control
to be delivered to Plaintiffs for destruction; and (5) retaining jurisdiction over this matter.
(Id.; see also Doc. 16-4.)
The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed.
Absent objections, the Court has examined the R&R for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016);
see also Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding no such error,
the Court concludes that the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie R. Hoffman’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 17) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.
Plaintiffs Roor International BV and Sream, Inc.’s Motion for Default Final
Judgment Against All Defendants (Doc. 16) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
The Motion is DENIED to the extent it requests $232.61 in
In all other respects, the Motion is GRANTED.
The Court AWARDS Plaintiffs Roor International BV and Sream, Inc.
statutory damages and costs in the amount of $15,671.60.
Defendants Ocean Shore Food Mart, Inc. and Askander Mirza, their agents,
companies, related companies, and all persons acting in concert or
participation with them are permanently restrained and enjoined from
infringing upon the RooR Marks with the registration numbers 3,675,839,
2,307,176, and 2,235,638 directly or contributorily, in any manner, including
but not limited to:
Import, export, making, manufacture, reproduction, assembly, use,
acquisition, purchase, offer, sale, transfer, brokerage, consignment,
distribution, storage, shipment, licensing, development, display,
delivery, marketing advertising or promotion of the counterfeit
RooR product identified in the complaint and any other
unauthorized RooR product, counterfeit, copy or colorful imitation
Assisting, aiding, or attempting to assist or aid any other person or
entity in performing any of the prohibited activities referred to in
Paragraphs (a) above.
Defendants Ocean Shore Food Mart, Inc. and Askander Mirza are
ORDERED to, at their cost, deliver to Plaintiffs for destruction all products,
advertisements, and other material in their possession, custody, or control
bearing any of the RooR Marks.
The Court retains jurisdiction over this action to enforce this Judgment,
Order, and Permanent Injunction.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiffs
Roor International BV and Sream, Inc. and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 8, 2019.
Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?