Adidas America, Inc. et al v. Forever 21, Inc.

Filing 198

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation as to Forever 21's unclean hands affirmative defense, and I ADOPT that section of the F&R as my own opinion. However, the section of the F&R that addresses Fore ver 21's fourth counterclaim is now moot, since Forever 21 amended its counterclaim. I therefore decline to adopt that section of the F&R. Forthese reasons, I ADOPT IN PART the F&R. 181 . Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 58 is GRANTED as to Forever 21's fifth affirmative defense of unclean hands and DENIED AS MOOT as to Forever 21's fourth counterclaim for cancellation of a trademark registration. Signed on 4/10/18 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., an Oregon corporation; ADIDAS AG, a foreign entity; ADIDAS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING B.V., a foreign entity, Case No. 3:17-cv-00377-YY OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, v. FOREVER 21 INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On March 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [181], recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [58] should be GRANTED. Defendant Forever 21 objected [188], but later withdrew its objections [194]. No response was filed. 1 – OPINION AND ORDER DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The F&R recommended the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to: (1) Forever 21’s fifth affirmative defense of unclean hands; and (2) Forever 21’s fourth counterclaim for cancellation of a trademark registration. F&R [181]. Forever 21 objected only to the F&R’s recommendation on the fourth counterclaim, but withdrew its objections after Judge You granted Forever 21’s unopposed motion for leave to amend the fourth counterclaim. [189, 190]. Upon review, I agree with Judge You’s recommendation as to Forever 21’s unclean hands affirmative defense, and I ADOPT that section of the F&R as my own opinion. However, the section of the F&R that addresses Forever 21’s fourth counterclaim is now moot, since Forever 21 amended its counterclaim. I therefore decline to adopt that section of the F&R. For these reasons, I ADOPT IN PART the F&R. [181]. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the 2 – OPINION AND ORDER Pleadings [58] is GRANTED as to Forever 21’s fifth affirmative defense of unclean hands and DENIED AS MOOT as to Forever 21’s fourth counterclaim for cancellation of a trademark registration. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10th DATED this ____ day of April, 2018. /s/ Michael W. Mosman _______________________ MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

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?