UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND d/b/a GOLDEN GOOSE SPA, :
: 19 Civ. 2521 (VSB) (GWG) Plaintiff, : REPORT AND -v.- RECOMMENDATION : AADCT OFFICIAL STORE, et al., :
Defendants. : ---------------------------------------------------------------X ---------------------------------------------------------------X GOLDEN GOOSE DELUXE BRAND d/b/a GOLDEN GOOSE SPA, :
: 19 Civ. 2524 (VSB) (GWG) Plaintiff, : REPORT AND -v.- RECOMMENDATION : ACEBRANDSHOES, et al., :
Defendants. : ---------------------------------------------------------------X
GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Golden Goose Deluxe Brand (“GG”) brought these two actions against various entities that GG alleges are infringing on GG’s trademarks through sales of counterfeit goods on the internet. 219 defendants have defaulted and now GG seeks a judgment against them for statutory damages and other relief.1 For the following reasons, GG should be awarded a
1 See Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 17, 2019 (Docket # 31); Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 13, 2019 (Docket # 64) (“PFF”); Affidavit of Brieanne Scully in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 13, 2019 (Docket # 65) (“Scully Aff.”); Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 13, 2019 (Docket # 66) (“Supp. Mem.”). judgment of $75,000 against each entity plus post-judgment interest along with a post-judgment asset restraining order and an order authorizing the release and transfer of defendants’ frozen assets to satisfy the award. I. BACKGROUND On March 21, 2019, GG filed two complaints alleging trademark counterfeiting; infringement of registered trademarks; false designation of origin, pass off, and unfair competition; infringement of unregistered trademarks; unfair competition; and unjust enrichment. See Complaint, filed April 5, 2019 (Docket # 7) (“Compl.”) (19cv2521); Complaint, filed April 5, 2019 (Docket # 9) (19cv2524). With the exception of defendant-
specific information, the filings in both cases are identical. Unless otherwise noted, references and citations herein refer to the documents filed in Golden Goose Deluxe Brand d/b/a Golden Goose Spa v. Aadct Official Store, et al., No. 19-2521 (S.D.N.Y. filed March 21, 2019). On the day it filed the complaint, GG also requested “1) a temporary restraining order; 2) an order restraining Merchant Storefronts and Defendants’ Assets with the Financial Institutions; 3) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue; 4) an order authorizing bifurcated and alternative service and 5) an order authorizing expedited discovery,” which was approved on March 22, 2019. Certificate of Service of Summons and Complaint, filed April 11, 2020 (Docket # 20) (“Serv. Cert.”) ¶¶ 4-5; see also Temporary Restraining Order and Accompanying Orders, filed on April 5, 2019 (Docket # 17). On April 3 and 4, 2019, GG served defendants according to the methods permitted by the
Substantively identical documents were filed in 19cv2524. See Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 17, 2019 (Docket # 29); Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 13, 2019 (Docket # 52); Affidavit of Brieanne Scully in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 13, 2019 (Docket # 53); Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed Dec. 13, 2019 (Docket # 54). 2 Court. Serv. Cert. ¶¶ 6-7. The defendants never answered, and the temporary restraining order was converted into a preliminary injunction on April 16, 2019. See Preliminary Injunction Order, filed Apr. 16, 2019 (Docket # 24) (“PIO”); Order, filed Apr. 16, 2019 (Docket # 25). GG filed a motion for summary judgment on June 17, 2019. See Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 17, 2019 (Docket # 31). The undersigned then held a conference on October 23, 2019, at which GG agreed to withdraw the summary judgment motion and instead seek a default judgment. See Order, filed Oct. 23, 2019 (Docket # 51). The Clerk subsequently issued Certificates of Default. See Clerk’s Certificate of Default, filed Oct. 28, 2019 (Docket # 54); Clerk’s Certificate of Default, filed Dec. 13, 2019 (Docket # 63). The Court deemed the motion
for summary judgment to constitute a motion for default judgment. Memo Endorsement, filed Oct. 28, 2019 (Docket # 56). The case was referred to the undersigned for an inquest. See Amended Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, filed Oct. 29, 2019 (Docket # 57). II. FACTS RELATING TO LIABILITY AND DAMAGES In light of defendants’ default, GG’s properly pleaded allegations in the complaint, except those related to damages, are accepted as true. See, e.g., City of N.Y. v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d Cir. 2011) (“It is an ‘ancient common law axiom’ that a defendant who defaults thereby admits all ‘well-pleaded’ factual allegations contained in the complaint.”) (quoting Vt. Teddy Bear Co., Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 246 (2d Cir. 2004)); Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009) (“In light of [defendant’s] default, a court is required to accept all . . . factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in [plaintiff’s] favor.”) (citation omitted). “The district court must instead conduct an
inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages with reasonable certainty.” Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). This inquiry 3 requires the District Court to: (1) “determin[e] the proper rule for calculating damages on . . . a claim” and (2) “assess[] plaintiff’s evidence supporting damages to be determined under this rule.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) “allows but does not require the district judge to
conduct a hearing” on the damages amount. Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 2, Albany, N.Y. Pension Fund v. Moulton Masonry & Const., LLC, 779 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[T]he court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, the Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary inasmuch as GG’s submissions have not been contested and they provide all the information needed to determine GG’s damages. A. Facts Relating to Liability GG is a high-end Italian fashion and accessories brand whose products are distributed in over 700 exclusive, multi-brand stores and franchises; seven flagships stores in the United States; and other flagship stores in cities such as Paris, London, Tokyo, St. Tropez, and Amsterdam. Compl. ¶¶ 160 (first), 163 (first).2 Stores that sell GG products include Barneys, Selfridges, and Bergdorf Goodman. Id. ¶ 163 (first). GG products “are marketed under the Golden Goose Marks,” which include several registered trademarks. Id. ¶ 161 (first); see also id. at *73-90 (“Exhibit B” includes registered trademarks and related documents).3 GG sneakers have been
listed as “one of the most popular sneakers of 2018.” Id. ¶ 164 (first) (internal quotation marks
2 After paragraph 171, the paragraph numbering of the complaint resets to 99 and the numbering continues sequentially. See Compl. at 31. Accordingly, there are duplicates of several paragraph numbers. We differentiate the duplicated paragraphs with a parenthetical stating either “first” or “second.”
3 “*__” indicates a page number assigned by the Court’s ECF system. 4 and footnote omitted). GG products retail for $250 to $2,400. Id. ¶ 165 (first). GG and its marks “have acquired a valuable reputation and goodwill among the public” and GG “has gone through great lengths to protect its interest in and to the [GG] Products and [GG] Marks.” Id. ¶¶ 170-71 (first). Defendants conduct business in the United States through their accounts and storefronts on Alibaba and AliExpress, which are online marketplace and e-commerce platforms that allow merchants to sell and ship products directly to consumers worldwide. Id. ¶ 99 (second). Defendants’ businesses all sell counterfeit GG products. See id. ¶ 103 (second). These products are shipped to consumers in the United States, including New York. Id.
GG retained an entity called New Alchemy Limited (“NAL”) to investigate trademark infringement. Id. ¶ 107 (second). Based on NAL’s efforts, GG learned that defendants have engaged in [M]anufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale and/or selling products bearing or used in connection with the Golden Goose Marks, and/or products in packaging and/or containing labels bearing the Golden Goose Marks, and/or bearing or used in connection with marks that are confusingly similar to the Golden Goose Marks and/or products that are identical or confusingly similar to the Golden Goose Products to U.S. consumers.
Id. Defendants are not authorized by GG to copy, sell, advertise, or otherwise disseminate the GG marks. See id. ¶ 108 (second). Defendants’ counterfeit products are “nearly indistinguishable” from GG products. Id. ¶ 109 (second). NAL confirmed that, as of the date the complaints were filed, defendants were still selling counterfeit products and provided shipping or had shipped to the United States, including New York. Id. ¶ 110 (second); see also id. ¶¶ 111-16 (second). In selling counterfeit products, defendants violated GG’s rights in the GG marks. Id. 5 ¶ 117 (second). Their conduct occurred after GG’s adoption and use of the marks and after GG obtained registrations and the marks became well-known. Id. “Defendants had knowledge of [GG’s] ownership of the [GG] Marks, of the fame and incalculable goodwill associated therewith and of the popularity and success of the [GG] Products, and in bad faith adopted the [GG] Marks.” Id. ¶ 118 (second). “Defendants have been engaging in the illegal counterfeiting and infringing actions . . . knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to [GG’s] rights, or in bad faith, for the purpose of trading on the goodwill and reputation of the [GG] Marks and [GG] Products.” Id. ¶ 119 (second). As a result of defendants’ sales of counterfeit GG products, defendants have caused confusion and mistake, deceived costumers,
and have damaged GG by associating their products with GG products. See id. ¶ 120 (second). Defendants’ bad faith has and will continue to cause irreparable harm to GG if not enjoined. See id. ¶¶ 121-22 (second). B. Damages Sought GG seeks $75,000 in statutory damages against each defaulting defendant under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, plus post-judgment interest; a post-judgment asset restraining order; and an order authorizing the release and transfer of defendants’ frozen assets to satisfy the award. See PFF ¶ 37; Scully Aff. ¶ 16; see also Supp. Mem. at 1. III. DISCUSSION A. Statutory Damages under the Lanham Act Under the Lanham Act, trademark owners may elect to receive statutory damages, instead of actual damages, from infringers. See 15 U.S.C § 1117(c). The Lanham Act provides: In a case involving the use of a counterfeit mark . . . in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services, the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits under subsection (a), an award of statutory damages for any such use in connection with the sale, or distribution of goods or services in 6 the amount of — (1) not less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, as the court considers just; or (2) if the court finds that the use of the counterfeit mark was willful, not more than $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, as the court considers just.
15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). Thus, the statute permits an award of between $1,000 and $200,000 per counterfeit mark. An award of up to $2,000,000 is permitted if the violation is willful, and “[t]rademark infringement is deemed willful by virtue of a defendant’s default.” Rovio Entm’t v. Allstar Vending, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 536, 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Keystone Global LLC v. Auto Essentials, Inc., 2015 WL 224359, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2015)) (collecting cases). Section 1117(c) was enacted to address the difficulty of calculating actual damages caused by counterfeiters. See, e.g., Pitbull Prods., Inc. v. Universal Netmedia, Inc., 2007 WL 3287368, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2007); Rodgers v. Anderson, 2005 WL 950021, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2005) (“The rationale for this section is the practical inability to determine profits or sales made by counterfeiters.”) (collecting cases); Gucci Am., Inc. v. Duty Free Apparel, Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 2d 511, 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Congress added the statutory damages provision of the Lanham Act in 1995 because ‘counterfeiters’ records are frequently nonexistent, inadequate, or deceptively kept . . . , making proving actual damages in these cases extremely difficult if not impossible.’”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 104-177, at 10 (1995)), amended in part, 328 F. Supp. 2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Luban, 282 F. Supp. 2d 123, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (same). Section 1117(c), however, “does not provide guidelines for courts to use in determining an appropriate award . . . as it is only limited by what the court considers just.” Gucci Am., 315 F. Supp. 2d at 520 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Many courts have looked to 7 the analogous provision in the Copyright Act for guidance, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), and have considered the following factors in setting statutory damage awards under the Lanham Act: (1) “the expenses saved and the profits reaped;” (2) “the revenues lost by the plaintiff;” (3) “the value of the copyright;” (4) “the deterrent effect on others besides the defendant;” (5) “whether the defendant’s conduct was innocent or willful;” (6) “whether a defendant has cooperated in providing particular records from which to assess the value of the infringing material produced;” and (7) “the potential for discouraging the defendant.”
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. A & V Minimarket, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 669, 673 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citations omitted); accord Sream, Inc. v. W. Vill. Grocery Inc., 2018 WL 4735706, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2018); Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Bhargava, 2017 WL 9802833, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2017), adopted by 2018 WL 1989574 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2018). We agree that those factors should be considered. With respect to the first two factors, we cannot determine from the record the extent of the expenses saved and profits reaped by defendants or the revenues lost by GG. However, “defendants have declined to participate in this lawsuit, and have thus deprived [GG] of the opportunity to make a meaningful assessment of the extent of their business, including volume of sales and profits earned.” Polo Ralph Lauren, L.P. v. 3M Trading Co. Inc., 1999 WL 33740332, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 1999). GG obtained only limited discovery from third-parties. See PFF ¶ 57; Scully Aff. ¶ 15. Due to their use of websites, the defendants have the “ability to reach a vast customer base through internet advertising,” Burberry Ltd. v. Designers Imps., Inc., 2010 WL 199906, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010), and thus we presume that their sales were voluminous and deprived GG of the ability to make at least some of those sales. See Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Jones., 2002 WL 596354, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2002) (noting the “virtually limitless number of customers available” through website sales). 8 As for the third factor, GG has not supplied any evidence of the monetary value of its trademarks. Nonetheless, GG “is a leading Italian high-end luxury men’s and women’s fashion and accessories brand that launched in or about 2000, which has distinguished itself with innovative but artisan spirited products, a low-key communication strategy and a highly selective
placement in venues that share the brand’s philosophy.” Declaration of Sandro Baggiani and Accompanying Exhibits, filed Apr. 5, 2019 (Docket # 15) (“Baggiani Decl.”) ¶ 3. GG products are “distributed through a network of more than 700 exclusive multi-brand stores and franchisees, along with 7 directly operated flagship stores in the United States and many others abroad” and “at luxury retailers such as Barneys, Selfridges and Bergdorf Goodman.” Id. ¶¶ 3- 4. Further, GG products have been featured in prominent publications such as The Wall Street Journal, the Cut, and GQ, among others. Id. ¶ 5. Thus, we can “‘infer from the well-known reputations of most or all of the trademarks and the sea of advertising that presses them on the consciousness of the buying public that they are indeed valuable.’” Lane Crawford LLC v. Kelex Trading (CA) Inc., 2013 WL 6481354, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) (quoting Polo Ralph
Lauren, 1999 WL 33740332, at *6) (additional citation omitted), adopted by 2014 WL 1338065 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2014). Factors four and seven, which relate to deterring the conduct of defendants and others, weigh in GG’s favor. “The need to deter other counterfeiters is particularly compelling given the apparent extent of counterfeit activity,” Bumble & Bumble, LLC v. Pro’s Choice Beauty Care, Inc., 2016 WL 658310, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2016), adopted by 2016 WL 1717215 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2016), as evidenced by the allegations in the complaint against the 219 defendants who defaulted. A substantial award is necessary to discourage defendants from
9 continuing to engage in their illicit conduct. In addition, defendants’ willful misconduct and failure to appear in this litigation merit a finding that “a slight damage award is unlikely to deter them from continuing their illegal business.” Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. LY USA, 2008 WL 5637161, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2008) (citations omitted), aff’d, 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.
2012). The remaining factors also weigh in favor of GG. With respect to the fifth factor, “by virtue of their default [defendants] are deemed to be willful infringers.” Lane Crawford LLC, 2013 WL 6481354, at *3 (collecting cases); accord Luban, 282 F. Supp. 2d at 124. Regarding the sixth factor, defendants have failed to participate in this litigation, and thus have deprived GG of any records from which to assess the value of the infringing materials. Having considered the factors, the requested statutory damage award of $75,000 per defaulting defendant is appropriate. It also falls within the range of awards granted by courts in this district in similar circumstances. See, e.g., William Mark Corp. v. 1&CC, 2019 WL 4195365, *10 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2019) (awarding $50,000 per defaulting defendant), adopted
by 2019 WL 4194536 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2019); Ideavillage Prod. Corp. v. Aarhus, 2019 WL 2290514, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2019) (awarding between $50,000 and $2,000,000 per defaulting defendant), adopted by 2019 WL 2287726 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2019); Spin Master, Inc. v. Amy & Benton Toys & Gifts Co., 2019 WL 464583, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2019) (awarding $50,000 per defaulting defendant); Off-White LLC v. ^_^ Warm House ^_^ Store, 2018 WL 4927905, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2018) (Off-White I) (awarding $100,000 per defendant) (collecting cases), modified and adopted by 2019 WL 418501 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2019) (Off-White II). Accordingly, GG should be awarded the $75,000 requested for each of
10 the 219 defaulting defendants, for a total of $16,425,000. B. Post-Judgment Interest GG also seeks post-judgment interest “against any remaining balance after the Defaulting Defendants’ Frozen Assets are transferred” at the statutory rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
See PFF ¶¶ 78-79; Supp. Mem. at 21. Post-judgment interest “accrues automatically by operation of law and thus it is not necessary to make reference to it in the judgment.” GATX Corp. v. Aero Jet Corp., 2014 WL 3585887, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)) (additional citations omitted), adopted by 2014 WL 3925233 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2014). C. Post-Judgment Asset Restraining Order In addition to monetary damages, GG seeks to continue the pre-judgment asset restraint currently in place. PFF ¶ 67; see also Supp. Mem. at 1. “A court may issue an injunction on a motion for default judgment provided that the moving party shows that (1) it is entitled to injunctive relief under the applicable statute and (2) it meets the prerequisites for the issuance of
an injunction.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lalaleo, 429 F. Supp. 2d 506, 516 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must show: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006) (citations omitted); accord Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 77-78 (2d Cir. 2010); Rovio Entm’t, 97 F. Supp. 3d at 547; 11 Laboratorios Rivas, SRL v. Ugly & Beauty, Inc., 2013 WL 5977440, at *11 & n.11 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2013), adopted by 2014 WL 112397 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2014); Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd. v. Kun Fung USA Trading Co. Inc., 2012 WL 1414872, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2012).
In this case, the eBay factors weigh in favor of granting GG an injunction. “In a trademark case, irreparable injury is established where there is any likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers are likely to be misled, or indeed simply confused, as to the source of the goods in question.” Lobo Enters., Inc. v. Tunnel, Inc., 822 F.2d 331, 333 (2d Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks); see also Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 426 F.3d 532, 537 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In trademark disputes, a showing of likelihood of confusion establishes . . . irreparable harm.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accepting its allegations as true, GG has alleged a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace that could lead to diminished reputation and loss of sales. The alleged conduct suggests that the defendants here “might continue to engage in
infringing activities and counterfeiting unless enjoined by the Court, demonstrating the danger that monetary damages will fail to fully provide [the plaintiff] with relief.” Rovio Entm’t, 97 F. Supp. 3d. at 547; accord Broad. Music Inc. v. Prana Hospitality, Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 184, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Courts in this Circuit have consistently found monetary damages inadequate where the defendant poses a significant threat of future infringement.”) (citing cases). Thus, the second factor weighs in GG’s favor. “As to the balance of hardships, ‘[i]t is axiomatic that an infringer . . . cannot complain about the loss of ability to offer its infringing product.’” Rovio Entm’t, 97 F. Supp. 3d at 547
12 (alteration in original) (quoting WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., 691 F.3d 275, 287 (2d Cir. 2012)). Finally, “‘the public has an interest in not being deceived — in being assured that the mark it associates with a product is not attached to goods of unknown origin and quality.’” Id. (quoting N.Y.C. Triathlon, LLC v. NYC Triathlon Club, Inc., 704 F. Supp. 2d 305, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2010));
accord Broad. Music, 158 F. Supp. 3d at 196 (“injunctive relief here will advance the public’s compelling interest in protecting copyright owners’ marketable rights to their work so as to encourage the production of creative work”) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). A preliminary injunction with provisions designed to prevent the defendants from further infringing activity has already been issued. See PIO. The terms of the preliminary injunction should be continued on a permanent basis. D. Release and Transfer of Frozen Assets GG also seeks an order transferring defendants’ frozen assets in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, 15 U.S.C. § 116(a), and the Court’s inherent equitable power. PFF
¶ 72; see also Supp. Mem. at 1. Courts in this district routinely order transfers of infringing defendants’ frozen assets to plaintiffs in similar trademark infringement cases, relying on the authority to issue injunctive relief under Rule 64 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, § 1116(a) of the Lanham Act, and this Court’s inherent equitable power to issue remedies ancillary to its authority to provide final relief.
William Mark Corp., 2019 WL 4195365, *12 (alterations omitted) (quoting Off-White II, 2019 WL 418501, at *6). “The need for asset freeze and transfer is clear: without this relief, defendants would have . . . a fourteen-day window under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) in which to hide their assets.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting 13 Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Forbse, 2015 WL 5638060, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015)). Such relief has been granted in similar circumstances. See, e.g., id.; Ideavillage Prod. Corp., 2019 WL 2290514, at *6; WowWee Grp. Ltd. v. Haoqin, 2019 WL 1316106, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2019). The same relief is warranted here.
IV. CONCLUSION As to docket number 19-cv-2521, Golden Goose Deluxe Brand’s motion for a default judgment (Docket # 31) should be granted, and judgment should be entered as follows: $75,000 from each defaulting defendant, as shown in the attached chart, for a total of $10,575,000 plus post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a); a permanent injunction under the same terms as the preliminary injunction already in place (see Docket # 24); and a freeze on defendants’ assets and a transfer of those assets to Golden Goose Deluxe Brand. As to docket number 19-cv-2524, Golden Goose Deluxe Brand’s motion for default judgment (Docket # 29), should be granted and judgment should be entered as follows: $75,000 for each defaulting defendant, as shown in the attached chart, for a total of $5,850,000 plus post-
judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a); a permanent injunction under the same terms as the preliminary injunction already in place (see Docket # 23); and a freeze on defendants’ assets and a transfer of those assets to Golden Goose Deluxe Brand. Golden Goose Deluxe Brand is directed to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation on all defendants using the authorized alternative service permitted by the Permanent Injunction Order (Docket # 24 (19cv2521), Docket # 23 (19cv2524)). It shall file proof of service within 7 days of this issuance of this Report and Recommendation.
14 PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from service of this Report and Recommendation to file any objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (b), (d). A party may respond to any objections within 14 days after being served. Any objections and responses shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Any request for an extension of time to file objections or responses must be directed to Judge Broderick. If a party fails to file timely objections, that party will not be permitted to raise any objections to this Report and Recommendation on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010). Defendants may file their response by email by sending it in pdf form to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. In the alternative, the response may be mailed to Pro Se Docketing, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. Dated: June 15, 2020 New York, New York Wd. Growler. Soldud Gowsl— United States Magistrate Judge
19-cv-2521 Defendant Award AAdct Official Store $75,000 a fish Store $75,000 Alice's Cosy Life Store $75,000 Amoda Store $75,000 Angela's Realphoto Mall $75,000 Anitaanita Store $75,000 Babaya Footwear Store $75,000 Bai Yuze Store $75,000 bestfashion Store $75,000 BLOOMNEXT Campaign Store $75,000 BomKinta Footwear Store $75,000 Bomlight Online Store $75,000 Boutique20th Store $75,000 Boutique quality Store $75,000 Casual Gril Store $75,000 Catherine Store $75,000 CCTWINS KIDS Store $75,000 CHchildren Store $75,000 cheap price good quality children Store $75,000 child baby shop $75,000 Child baby store $75,000 China's online mall $75,000 CHIRSTYCHRISTY Store $75,000 city life $75,000 cn1513305761 Store $75,000 CNFSNJ Store $75,000 Cosmagic Exquisite Moment Store $75,000 CYFMYD Yu Hang Store $75,000 Delicate Girl Store $75,000 DENGCHEN Store $75,000 Dong Dong Store $75,000 Dreams Store $75,000 EISWELT Sprot Store $75,000 Faster delivery Store $75,000 fish fish shop 888 Store $75,000 FOR HOPE AND LOVE $75,000 Fujian Jinjiang City Chendai Yangdai Shengdong Shoes Co., Ltd. $75,000 GGOB Store $75,000 Goodboy Sneakers Store $75,000 Grand Footwear Store $75,000 GTIME Official Store $75,000 Hangzhou Tongning Trade Co., Ltd. $75,000 Hefei Kinsney Trading Co., Ltd. $75,000 Hipster Store $75,000 HLY Store $75,000 HTUUA Official Store $75,000 ISEAQ Official Store $75,000 Jackshibo Footwear Store $75,000 Jerry Mi's store $75,000 jide01 Store $75,000 Jookrrix Boutique Store $75,000 Jookrrix Store $75,000 Kezrea Online Store $75,000 Kim's Korea Product Company Store $75,000 king8 Store $75,000 Lans Yeser Official Store $75,000 Loecktty Official Store $75,000 Magical businessman Store $75,000 MAISMODA Factory Store $75,000 mengqixiaowu Store $75,000 Mens Bags Online Store $75,000 midnight stars $75,000 minglian Store $75,000 mingxue Store $75,000 Mother Love baby shoe Store $75,000 MR&MS Store $75,000 MRMUKER No.2 Store $75,000 Nanjing July Clothing Co., Ltd. $75,000 niu niu Boutique Store $75,000 Nokodemo Official Store $75,000 Noteucm Global Store $75,000 Online shoe store $75,000 PengMiao Trading Co., Ltd. Store $75,000 Persistence Store $75,000 PinePoxp bag Store $75,000 prittiku Global Store $75,000 QUAN ZHOU Store $75,000 Queen6 Store $75,000 reunion Store $75,000 RLJ Store $75,000 Rocky 201701 Store $75,000 ROOM 3 $75,000 RUIM Store $75,000 SARAMAC Store $75,000 Shoe's Accessory Store $75,000 shop 760415shop Store $75,000 Shop2543009 Store $75,000 Shop2821049 Store $75,000 Shop2834079 Store $75,000 Shop3115024 Store $75,000 Shop3862047 Store $75,000 Shop3868025 Store $75,000 Shop4044053 Store $75,000 Shop4384077 Store $75,000 Shop4391095 Store $75,000 Shop4400058 Store $75,000 Shop4403036 Store $75,000 Shop4407021 Store $75,000 Shop4422008 Store $75,000 Shop4429023 Store $75,000 Shop4481127 Store $75,000 Shop4542013 Store $75,000 Shop4573031 Store $75,000 Shop4607007 Store $75,000 Shop4614002 Store $75,000 Shop4651213 Store $75,000 Shop4698097 Store $75,000 Sillay Store $75,000 Smgslib kidsshoes Store $75,000 Sooneeya Store $75,000 SUOJIALUN Official Store $75,000 Supermen Store $75,000 Supermen2 Store $75,000 Tenacious shoe Store $75,000 the boot Store $75,000 TracyGold Store $75,000 Trend Store Store $75,000 TTxs Store $75,000 UPPANG Store $75,000 Warm shop Store $75,000 WENKOUBAN Comfy Store $75,000 Wetry Store $75,000 weweya Factory Store $75,000 WQGZZD Official Store $75,000 WQGZZD YC 88 Store Store $75,000 WSTXMI Official Store $75,000 Xinglan Store $75,000 xinranaini Store $75,000 yangwangxingkong Store $75,000 Yiwu Saikoo Trading Co., Ltd. $75,000 YouPin Store $75,000 Youtehao Store $75,000 YUG China Store $75,000 zeeohh 666 Store $75,000 zeeohh $75,000 Cozyroom Store $75,000 zhangxueyou Store $75,000 zhexi2018 Store $75,000 total: $10,575,000 19-cv-2524 Defendant Award Acebrandshoes $75,000 ainihao2000 $75,000 asiafactorysince1984 $75,000 ballballu $75,000 Beibao22147 $75,000 bestgoods2019 $75,000 Brand_footwear $75,000 chen525 $75,000 chicbagg $75,000 chinatopvender $75,000 dh1998 $75,000 diyshoes350 $75,000 dripgod $75,000 elecc $75,000 fashion_tut $75,000 Feichang6jia1 $75,000 fjl1688 $75,000 gbxqqq $75,000 ggdboutlet $75,000 Ggdbshop $75,000 ggdbsneakers $75,000 ggdbstore $75,000 goldengooses $75,000 Goosegolden $75,000 Gwyg975 $75,000 haikee $75,000 hanlin688 $75,000 hanwushoes $75,000 hi510318 $75,000 homemie $75,000 Iptv001 $75,000 jiuwuzhizun8 $75,000 justdoit00 $75,000 kofeve $75,000 kofeve1 $75,000 kofeve2 $75,000 kofeve3 $75,000 kpu2018 $75,000 legou666 $75,000 lghqqq $75,000 Lingjie520 $75,000 luishen04 $75,000 luishen06 $75,000 luishen07 $75,000 luishen23 $75,000 luishen27 $75,000 maobai896 $75,000 meikai 18 $75,000 mengmeng2016 $75,000 mikeey $75,000 one001 $75,000 pineappleg $75,000 popsneaker $75,000 Qiubaoding $75,000 raisins $75,000 reputation2000 $75,000 rose6689 $75,000 runshoesss $75,000 shoes1122 $75,000 shoes112500 $75,000 Sneakerfever $75,000 Star3store $75,000 sunnyshop008 $75,000 suprshoes $75,000 taiwen201418 $75,000 Topboost $75,000 topyeezy350 $75,000 top boost350 $75,000 Vanesse $75,000 vipsneaker $75,000 World brand1 $75,000 Xinashoes $75,000 ycqz6 $75,000 yeezyoutlet $75,000 Yeyangwen $75,000 yuntu9999store $75,000 zap666 $75,000 total: $5,850,000