Case 1:17-cv-00415-LMB-TCB Document 44 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 373
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`MONTBLANC-SIMPLO GMBH,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MIROSLAV ILNITSKY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`l:17-cv-415(LMB/TCB)
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") issued by a magistrate
`
`judge on January 25, 2018 [Dkt. No. 43], which recommended that plaintiff Montblanc-SimpIo
`
`GmbH's ("plaintiff or "Montblanc") Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. No. 39] be granted and
`
`that default judgment be entered against defendant Miroslav Ilnitskiy ("defendant" or "Ilnitsky")
`
`on Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the First Amended Verified Complaint. S^ Report at 26-27. The parties
`
`were advised that any objections to the Report had to be filed within 14 days and that failure to
`
`file a timely objection waived the right to appeal any judgment based on the Report. Id. at 28. As
`
`of February 12, 2018, no party has filed an objection. The Court has reviewed the Report,
`
`plaintiffs motion for default judgment, and the case file and adopts the Report in full.
`
`The magistrate judge correctly determined that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because it involves federal questions
`
`arising under the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act. Report at 2. The magistrate judge also
`
`correctly concluded that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Ilnitskiy because Ilnitskiy "set
`
`up an interactive e-commerce website and social media accounts accessible to Virginia
`
`residents" and used these "websites and accounts to individually communicate with, receive
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00415-LMB-TCB Document 44 Filed 02/13/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 374
`
`payment from, and ship counterfeit products to at least one customer in Virginia." Id. at 4.
`
`Moreover, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that venue is appropriate in this district
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the activity described in the
`
`Complaint has taken place in this district. Id Lastly, the magistrate judge has correctly
`
`concluded that plaintiff properly served Ilnitskiy by publishing notice of the action and emailing
`
`notice to eight email accounts associated with Ilnitskiy. Id at 5-6. Moreover, Ilnitskiy apparently
`
`responded at least twice to plaintiffs notice-related emails, indicating that he has received actual
`
`notice of the litigation. Id. at 6 n.3.
`
`The Court finds that the magistrate judge correctly determined that plaintiff has pleaded
`
`the requirements for obtaining relief under the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act, by pleading
`
`that it owns the copyrights and trademarks in a variety of images, words, and expressions and
`
`that defendant has used those copyrights and trademarks to replicate plaintiffs website and sell
`
`counterfeit replicas of plaintiffs products. Report at 8-10. Moreover, the magistrate judge
`
`correctly found that plaintiff has adequately pleaded that it has registered various marks as
`
`trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, that defendant has knowingly and
`
`intentionally produced counterfeit versions of plaintiffs marks, that defendant's use of these
`
`marks occurred in connection with the distribution of goods, and that defendant's use of the
`
`marks is likely to confuse consumers, all in violation of the Lanham Act. Id at 10-15.
`
`Additionally, the magistratejudge correctly found that plaintiff has adequately pleaded that it
`
`owns the Montblanc Works copyright and that defendant "replicated Montblanc Works and
`
`displayed them during his promotion and sale of counterfeit Montblanc Products," in violation of
`
`the Copyright Act. Id at 15-16.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00415-LMB-TCB Document 44 Filed 02/13/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 375
`
`Accordingly, the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff is entitled to relief
`
`under the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act is fully supported, as is the recommendation that
`
`plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages, injunctive relief, and prejudgment and postjudgment
`
`interest. Id at 16-26.
`
`The recommendation that despite plaintiffs request for attorney's fees and costs, plaintiff
`
`has not provided adequate information about the fees and costs it has incurred to allow the Court
`
`to include such an award in the default judgment is also fully supported, and plaintiff has not
`
`objected to that recommendation. Id at 17 n.4.
`
`Accordingly, the Report is ADOPTED, plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt.
`
`No. 39] is GRANTED, and it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that default judgment be and is entered against defendant Miroslav Ilnitskiy
`
`on Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the First Amended Complaint in the total amount of $32,150,000.00
`
`(consisting of $150,000 in statutory damages for violations of the Copyright Act and $2 million
`
`in statutory damages for each of the 16 identified trademark violations under the
`
`Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act), with prejudgment interest calculated in accordance
`
`with Va. Code § 6.2-302 and accruing from August 17, 2015 until the date of entry ofjudgment
`
`and postjudgment interest calculated in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and accruing from the
`
`date of entry ofjudgment; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that Count 1 be and is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is
`
`further
`
`ORDERED that defendant Miroslav Ilnitskiy, together with all those in active concert or
`
`participation with him, is enjoined from copying, distributing, altering, displaying, hosting,
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00415-LMB-TCB Document 44 Filed 02/13/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 376
`
`selling and/or promoting copyright protected images and websites authored or owned by plaintiff
`
`(the "Montblanc Works"); and it is further
`
`ORDERED that defendant Miroslav Ilnitskiy, together with all those in active concert or
`
`participation with him, is enjoined from using any copy or colorable imitation of any mark
`
`registered to plaintiff with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "Montblanc
`
`Marks"), including but not limited to the marks identified in Paragraphs 24 and 26 and Schedules
`
`B and C of the First Amended Verified Complaint, which is attached to this Order, in connection
`
`with the promotion, advertisement, display, sale, offering for sale, manufacture, printing,
`
`importation, production, circulation, or distribution of any product or service, in such fashion as
`
`to relate or connect such product in any way to Montblanc, or to any goods sold, manufactured,
`
`sponsored, approved by, or connected with Montblanc; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that defendant Miroslav Ilnitskiy, together with all those in active concert or
`
`participation with him, is enjoined from engaging in any other activity constituting unfair
`
`competition with Montblanc, or constituting an infringement of the Montblanc Marks or the
`
`Montblanc Works, or constituting any damage to Montblanc's name, reputation, or goodwill;
`
`and it is further
`
`ORDERED that any person or entity in active concert or participation with defendant
`
`Miroslav Ilnitskiy and with notice of the injunction, including any Internet search engines, web
`
`hosting and Internet service providers, domain name registrars (including, but not limited to,
`
`eNom, Inc.), domain name registries, email service providers (including, but not limited to,
`
`Google), social media network operators (including, but not limited to, Instagram, LLC and
`
`VKontakte), and payment processors (including, but not limited to, Paypal), cease facilitating
`
`access to any or all domain names, websites, accounts, and services through which defendant
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00415-LMB-TCB Document 44 Filed 02/13/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 377
`
`engages in unlawful access to, use, reproduction, distribution, and sale of the Montblanc Works
`
`or Montblanc Marks or goods bearing the Montblanc Marks, including without limitation all
`
`such domain names, websites, accounts, and services identified in the First Amended Verified
`
`Complaint and Exhibit A thereto, which is attached to this Order.
`
`The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in plaintiffs favor pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55
`
`and forward copies of this Order to counsel of record and defendant, pro se.
`
`Entered this
`
`/ 3 day ofFebruary, 2018.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`/]
`
`MUJfll
`Leonie M. Brinkeiita
`United States District Judge
`
`