Venus By Maria Tash, Inc. v. Prinatriam Ltd

Background

The opinion states that, in an order dated May 13, 2022, District Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered default judgment against the defendants on eight claims: copyright infringement; trademark infringement under the federal Lanham Act; several related Lanham Act claims, including false advertising, false designation of origin, false representation of fact, unfair competition, and passing off; trademark infringement and unfair competition under New York common law; deceptive acts and practices under New York General Business Law § 349; false advertising under § 350; and injury to business reputation and dilution under § 360-I.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger to conduct an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine damages after the default judgment.

Required submissions

The order required Venus By Maria Tash, Inc. to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and other monetary relief permitted by the default judgment by June 16, 2022. The filing had to include a concluding paragraph stating the exact dollar amount or other monetary relief sought.

The proposed findings had to connect the requested damages to the claims on which judgment had been entered, explain how the damages figure was calculated, and include support from affidavits or documentary evidence. Each proposed finding had to cite the supporting affidavit paragraphs or document pages. The plaintiff also had to submit an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge addressing the facts supporting personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject-matter jurisdiction.

Attorney’s fees and legal memorandum

Any request for attorney’s fees had to include contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the service date, hours worked, and work performed. The plaintiff also had to provide information about each attorney’s years of bar admission, hourly rate, and the reasonableness of that rate, along with the legal basis for the requested fees.

Instead of separate conclusions of law, the plaintiff could file a memorandum explaining the legal principles supporting its damages claims, interest request, or attorney’s-fee request.

Defendants’ response and possible hearing

The defendants’ response, if any, was due to the plaintiff’s counsel and the court by July 7, 2022. Judge Lehrburger stated that the damages inquest could be conducted solely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented.

Disposition

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered the plaintiff to serve the required documents under previously approved service methods, file proof of service, and comply with the submission schedule. This order set procedures for determining damages; it did not itself award a damages amount.