United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF
June 20, 2018, Order [ECF No. 31], this Court found that the
Defendants, North American Prime Inc. and Ean Manning, were
in default and liable to the Plaintiff as alleged in the
Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 2]. The Court also
referred the Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment [ECF No. 29] to Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to calculate
damages. (See June 20, 2018 Order.) On July 24,
2018, this Court issued an Order [ECF No. 35], clarifying
that the Magistrate Judge was granted authority to conduct
any proceeding deemed necessary to ascertain damages.
October 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Cherry issued a Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 40] setting forth a recommendation
that the Court grant the Plaintiff's motion in part and
grant with relief different than requested in part.
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended the following
relief in favor of the Plaintiff:
(1) an award in the amount of $2, 000, 000 for trademark
(2) an award in the amount of $100, 000 for cybersquatting;
(3) injunctive and equitable relief in the form of: a)
enjoining the Defendants from using the domain names
containing “NORTH AMERICA” or “NORTH
AMERICAN” when the domain names are used for the
purpose of offering either goods or services of a type
offered by the Plaintiff or with the purpose of redirecting
internet traffic from the Plaintiff, b) stating the
Defendants registered the domain names northamericaprime.com
and northamericaprimelines.com in violation of the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and c) ordering
the Defendants to transfer the domain names
northamericaprime.com and northamericaprimelines.com to the
Plaintiff, if the Defendants retain any rights to those
(4) Reasonable attorney fees and costs; and
(5) Post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Court set a
briefing schedule if the Court awarded attorney's fees.
Court's review of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)
which provides in part:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
and recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate. The
judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the
matter to the magistrate with instructions.
portion of the magistrate judge's disposition that is not
objected to is reviewed for clear error. Johnson v. Zema
Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
to the Magistrate's Judge's Report and
Recommendations must be made within fourteen days of service
of a copy of the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No. party has filed an objection to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
reviewed the Plaintiff's submissions, and having found no
clear error in the Report and Recommendation, the Court
ACCEPTS the Report and ...