Avnet, Inc. v. Avana Technologies Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER that the 29 Report and Recommendation is Accepted and Adopted to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order. Plaintiff Avnet Inc.'s 25 Motion for Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction by Default is Granted in Part an d Denied in Part. Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $25,000. FURTHER ORDERED that a permanent injunction is entered pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is Denied with respect to attorneys' fees and costs. Any relief not specifically addressed is Denied. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

AVNET, INC.,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

AVANA TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
7

Defendant.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00929-GMN-PAL
ORDER

9
10

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

11

Judge Peggy A. Leen, (ECF No. 29), which recommends that Plaintiff Avnet Inc.’s Motion for

12

Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction by Default (ECF No. 25) be GRANTED in part and

13

DENIED in part.

14

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

15

United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1–4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

16

D. Nev. R. IB 3–2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo

17

determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject,

18

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3–2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is

20

not required to conduct “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”

21

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a

22

district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no

23

objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th

24

Cir. 2003).

25

Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. Accordingly,

Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Avnet Inc.’s Motion for Final Judgment and
Permanent Injunction by Default (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages in the amount
of $25,000.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a permanent injunction be entered pursuant to 15

8

U.S.C. § 1116 enjoining Defendant and its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and

9

all persons, corporations, business entities, and other associations of persons who are in active

10

concert or participation with Defendant, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from,

11

directly or indirectly: using the Infringing Design, or any other word, words, phrases, symbols,

12

logos, or combination of words or symbols that would create a likelihood of confusion, mistake

13

and/or deception with the AV Design Mark, in commerce in connection with any products or

14

services similar or related to the Avnet Products and Services; and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118,

15

Defendant and its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons, corporations,

16

business entities, and other associations of persons who are in active concert or participation

17

with Defendant, are hereby ordered to deliver up to Plaintiff for destruction all materials

18

containing the Infringing Design, or any other word, words, phrases, symbols, logos, or

19

combination of words or symbols, that would create a likelihood of confusion, mistake or

20

deception with the AV Design Mark, in connection with any products or services similar or

21

related to the Avnet Products and Services.

22
23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment be DENIED
with respect to attorneys’ fees and costs.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any relief not specifically addressed be DENIED.

25

DATED this 23rd day of December, 2014.

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
Page 2 of 2 United States District Court