Roku Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto
1:22-cv-00202
S.D.N.Y.Jun 2, 2025Background
- Roku, Inc. sued various entities for selling counterfeit products using Roku's registered trademarks via online stores accessible to New York residents.
- Several defendants (the "Defaulting Defendants") failed to respond or appear in the lawsuit, resulting in an order to show cause for default judgment.
- The court (Judge Gardephe) entered default judgment in favor of Roku after a show cause hearing and tasked Magistrate Judge Figueredo with an inquest into damages and injunctive relief.
- Magistrate Judge Figueredo recommended statutory damages, post-judgment interest, a permanent injunction, and asset restraint in Roku's favor.
- No party objected to the Report and Recommendation, waiving rights to further challenge or appeal.
- Judge Vargas adopted the recommendations, awarding Roku $1,050,000 in statutory damages, issuing a permanent injunction, and ordering release and transfer of restrained assets to satisfy the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting | Defendants sold counterfeit products using Roku's trademarks, violating the Lanham Act | No response (default) | Defendants liable for trademark infringement and counterfeiting |
| Damages under Lanham Act (statutory) | Roku entitled to statutory damages for each defaulting defendant | No response (default) | Plaintiff awarded specified statutory damages per defendant |
| Permanent Injunction | Ongoing risk of further infringement requires permanent injunctive relief | No response (default) | Permanent injunction granted, prohibiting further use of Roku trademarks |
| Asset Restraint and Transfer Post-Judgment | Frozen assets should be released and transferred to satisfy the judgment | No response (default) | Asset transfer from financial accounts to Roku approved |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1997) (addresses standard for district court review of magistrate recommendations)
- Miller v. Brightstar Asia, Ltd., 43 F.4th 112 (2d Cir. 2022) (discusses the waiver of objections to magistrate recommendations)