3M Company v. Performance Supply, LLC

Background

3M Company brought claims against Performance Supply, LLC, including trademark infringement and false advertising. The complaint alleged that Performance Supply used 3M’s trademarks as part of a false and deceptive price-gouging scheme involving consumers, including government entities, during the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 4, 2020, the court granted 3M Company’s request for a preliminary injunction.

On May 21, 2020, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a criminal complaint against Performance Supply’s principal. Further proceedings in this civil case were deferred while that criminal matter proceeded. After the criminal case concluded, 3M Company reported that the civil case should continue.

Default and Recommendation

Performance Supply did not file an answer or otherwise appear. The clerk entered a certificate of default on November 29, 2022. On January 13, 2023, 3M Company moved for default judgment and a permanent injunction. Performance Supply did not appear or oppose either motion.

Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and Recommendation on April 26, 2023, recommending that the court grant both motions. The report clearly warned that a party had 14 days to object and that failing to object would waive the right to object and prevent appellate review. 3M Company served the report on Performance Supply, but neither party filed an objection.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

Because no timely objection was filed, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Clear-error review asks whether the recommendation contains an obvious factual or legal mistake. The court found that the report’s reasoning and conclusions were sound, supported by the facts and law, and not clearly erroneous.

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It granted 3M Company’s motion for default judgment and granted 3M Company’s motion for a permanent injunction. The court stated that it would issue a separate final judgment and permanent injunction, directed the clerk to close the case, and stated that the absence of timely objections precluded appellate review. The opinion does not provide the precise terms of the separate permanent injunction.