JS IP LLC v. Great Neck Pavilion Associates LLC et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Judge Lindsay's R&R (Docket Entry 22) is ADOPTED in its entirety and Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Defendants are hereby ENJOINED from: (a) using Plaintiff's Fontainebleau Mark o r any mark trade name or source identifier that is confusingly similar to the Fontainebleau Mark, including without limitation Fountain Blue and Fountain Blue Hookah Lounge; and (b) selling, advertising, or promoting goods that infringe on the Fontai nebleau Mark. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum & Order on Defendants and file proof of service. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor Plaintiff and mark this matter CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/4/2016. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
JS IP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-1174(JS)(ARL)

GREAT NECK PAVILION ASSOCIATES LLC
and FANOUS RESTAURANT CORP.,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Lauren Alana Isaacoff, Esq.
Stuart P. Slotnick, Esq.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C.
1290 Avenue of the Americas, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10104
For Defendants:

No appearance

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Arlene R.
Lindsay’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and
permanently

enjoin

Defendants

from

further

infringing

Plaintiff’s trademark rights pursuant to the Lanham Act.
Entry 22.)

on

(Docket

For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge

Lindsay’s R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff

commenced

this

action

on

March

6,

2015

asserting the following claims: (1) false designation of origin
and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 1125(a); (2) trademark dilution in violation of the Lanham Act;
(3) trademark dilution in violation of New York General Business
Law Section 360-1; (4) unlawful deceptive acts or practices in
violation of New York General Business Law Section 349; (5) unfair
competition in violation of New York common law; and (6) unlawful
use of name or address in violation of New York General Business
Law Section 133. (Compl., Docket Entry 1.) Plaintiff is the owner
of the trademark “Fontainebleau” (the “Fontainebleau Mark”), which
has been used “in connection with bar and restaurant services and
related goods and services since at least as early as 1953.”
(Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infringed

on the Fontainebleau Mark by owning and operating a bar, lounge,
and restaurant called the “Fountain Blue Hookah Lounge,” which
opened in or about May 2014.

(Compl. ¶¶ 30-31.)

On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff moved for the entry of a
default judgment against Defendants. (Docket Entry 20.) Plaintiff
withdrew its claim for monetary damages for the purposes of its
motion and seeks the entry of a permanent injunction against
Defendants.

(Pl.’s Br., Docket Entry 20-1, at 1, n.1.)

On

September 14, 2015, the undersigned referred Plaintiff’s motion to
Judge Lindsay for an R&R on whether the motion should be granted.
(Docket Entry 21.)
On January 20, 2016, Judge Lindsay issued her R&R.
(Docket Entry 22.)

The R&R recommends that the Court grant
2

Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and that Defendants be
permanently enjoined from: (1) using Plaintiff’s Fontainebleau
Mark,

“or

any

mark

trade

name

or

source

identifier

that

is

confusingly similar to the Fontainebleau Mark including Fountain
Blue

and

Fountain

Blue

Hookah

Lounge”;

and

(2)

“selling,

advertising or promoting goods that infringe the Fontainebleau
mark.”

(R&R at 1, 9-10.)
DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,

reject,

or

modify,

recommendations

made

in
by

whole
the

or

in

part,

magistrate

the

findings

judge.”

28

and

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 Lindsay’s R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free
of clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.

3

CONCLUSION
Judge Lindsay’s R&R (Docket Entry 22) is ADOPTED in its
entirety and Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Defendants are hereby

ENJOINED from: (a) using Plaintiff’s Fontainebleau Mark or any
mark trade name or source identifier that is confusingly similar
to the Fontainebleau Mark, including without limitation Fountain
Blue and Fountain Blue Hookah Lounge; and (b) selling, advertising,
or promoting goods that infringe on the Fontainebleau Mark.
Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum
& Order on Defendants and file proof of service.

The Clerk of the

Court is directed to enter judgment in favor Plaintiff and mark
this matter CLOSED.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

March
4 , 2016
Central Islip, New York

4