# Lighting & Supplies, Inc. v. New Sunshine Energy Solutions INC

> District Court, E.D. New York · March 29, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309498

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** March 29, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309498

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LIGHTING & SUPPLIES, INC.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 20-CV-2790 (FB) (VMS)
-against-

NEW SUNSHINE ENERGY SOLUTIONS
INC., NEW SUNSHINE
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.,
SHENZHEN ZHAOPENG TECHNOLOGY
CO. LTD., DONGGUAN ZHAOPENG
LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., and
NEW SUNSHINE LIGHTING, INC.,

Defendants.

Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
ANDREW BOCHNER
Bochner IP, PLLC
295 Madison Ave 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017

JONATHAN L. ADLER

JACOB E. LEWIN
Stein Adler Dabah Zelkowitz LLP

1633 Broadway 46th Floor
New York, NY 10019

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On March 15, 2023, Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiffs’ motion for damages be
granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants
New Sunshine Energy Solutions Inc. (“NSES”), New Sunshine Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd. (“NSMC”), Shenzhen Zhaopeng Technology Co. Ltd. (“SZT”); Dongguan

Zhaopeng Lighting Technology Co. Ltd. (“DZLT”), and New Sunshine Lighting,
Inc. (“NSL”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging trademark infringement
pursuant to Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), unfair

competition and false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and supplemental claims under New York law.
On February 10, 2022, Magistrate Judge Scanlon recommended that this
Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment on liability with respect to

Counts I, III, and V, and deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief. This Court adopted Magistrate Scanlon’s March 10 recommendation after
no parties objected. In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of

$50,000 per infringed mark from Defendants NSL and NSES, as well as attorneys’
fees and costs. Magistrate Judge Scanlon recommends this motion be granted in
part and denied in part.
Specifically, the R&R recommends awarding Plaintiffs the following

damages: (1) $250,000, which is equivalent to $50,000 for each of the five
infringed marks; (2) $1,692.35 in costs; and (3) post-judgment interest on those
awards “calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the

weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the
date of the judgment” under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The R&R recommends denying

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. The R&R also recommends dismissing
Defendants NSMC, SZT, and DZLT from this action because Plaintiff has waived
any claim for damages against them, as well as the claims as to which Plaintiff has

failed to timely move for a default judgment as to damages or claims for injunctive
relief.
Magistrate Judge Scanlon’s R&R stated that failure to object within fourteen
days of the date of the R&R waives the right to appeal, precluding further review

either by this Court or the Court of Appeals. No objections were filed. If clear
notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object and there are no
objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Smith v.

Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of
the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate's report and
recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's
decision.”) (internal citations omitted). The Court will excuse the failure to object

and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have
committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr.
Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000). No such error appears here.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs
the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R.

SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block__________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge

Brooklyn, New York
March 29, 2023

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309498. Public record. Not legal advice.