Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC v. Dongguan Yikang Plush Toys Co., Ltd.
- Subramanian
- 1:21-cv-08111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kelly Toys v. Guangzhou Lianqi, Judge Subramanian adopted a damages recommendation after defendants defaulted and closed the case.
Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC received the relief recommended by Magistrate Judge Gorenstein: $500,000, post-judgment interest, transfer of the infringing domain name, and a permanent injunction. The defendants lost the opportunity to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review based on the court's finding that they waived those rights, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC v. Guangzhou Lianqi Technology Co., Ltd., the court had already entered a judgment because the defendants failed to participate, deciding liability for Kelly Toys and sending the question of damages to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein.
Gorenstein recommended $500,000, post-judgment interest, transfer of the infringing domain name, and a permanent injunction. The defendants filed no objections or request for more time, so the court said they waived their right to object and to seek appellate review.
Judge Arun Subramanian reviewed the recommendation and adopted it in its entirety. The court directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC v. Dongguan Yikang Plush Toys Co., Ltd. · No. 1:21-cv-08111
- Subramanian
- May 1, 2024
Background
On June 16, 2023, the court granted Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC a default judgment on liability. A default judgment is a judgment entered after a defendant fails to participate in the case. The court then sent the damages issue to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for an inquest, or a proceeding to determine the amount and related relief owed.
Report and Recommendation
On April 1, 2024, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended that Kelly Toys receive $500,000 and post-judgment interest. The recommendation also called for transfer of the infringing domain name and a permanent injunction.
The recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections or requests for an extension were filed. The court therefore concluded that the defendants had waived their right to object and to obtain appellate review of the recommendation. The opinion also states that service of the recommendation was not required because the defendants were in default for failing to appear.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian reviewed the recommendation and the record without objections. The court found the recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law, and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.