Cambridge Pavers, Inc. v. Armorproof Paving & Masonry LI, Inc. and Thomas J. O’Leary

Summary

The Eastern District of New York reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning Cambridge Pavers, Inc.’s motion for default judgment against Armorproof Paving & Masonry LI, Inc. The court grants default judgment and permanent injunctive relief on claims for federal trademark infringement and false designation of origin, while denying or deeming abandoned the remaining claims and forms of relief. The opinion addresses Rule 55 default-judgment standards, review of an R&R, and likelihood of confusion in trademark litigation.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff sufficiently established that its registered Armortec and Cambridge marks were valid, suggestive, inherently distinctive, relatively strong, and entitled to protection.
2. Plaintiff established liability on default for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
3. Plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Armorproof from infringing Plaintiff’s marks.
4. The court adopted the unopposed portions of the report and recommendation, denying as abandoned requests for damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements, and denying or deeming abandoned the claims for dilution, New York common-law unfair competition, statutory unfair competition under GBL § 360-1, GBL § 349 deceptive practices, and cyberpiracy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff’s registered marks were valid and entitled to protection under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether Defendant Armorproof’s use of “Armorproof Paving and Masonry” was likely to cause consumer confusion under the Polaroid factors, supporting liability for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
3. Whether Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a permanent injunction under the Lanham Act and general equitable principles.
4. Whether the unopposed portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be adopted, including denial or abandonment of the remaining claims and requested monetary relief.

Disposition

other