United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Shenzhen Dejiayun Network 

Technology Co., Plaintiff, 

v. 

The Partnerships and 

Unincorporated Associations 

Identified on Schedule A, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-22363-Civ-Scola 

Order Adopting Report and Recommendations and 

Granting Motion for Default Judgment 

The Court referred Plaintiff Shenzhen Dejiayun Network Technology Co.’s 

motion for final default judgment (ECF No. 50) to United States Magistrate 

Judge Jonathan Goodman for a report and recommendations. Judge Goodman 

issued his report, recommending that the Court grant the Plaintiff’s motion in 

part and deny it in part. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 75.) Although none of the 

Defendants have objected, the Plaintiff has timely objected, complaining not 

about Judge Goodman’s ultimate recommendations, but instead taking issue 

only with his reasoning in calculating the award each defaulting Defendant 

should pay. (Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 78.) The Court has reviewed the report and the 

record in this case and adopts Judge Goodman’s recommendations (ECF No. 

75), thus granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff’s motion for 

default judgment (ECF No. 50), awarding damages and entering an injunction 

as set forth below. 

1. Adopting the Report and Recommendations 

The Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the Defendants are selling, offering for 

sale, and marketing counterfeit products using the Plaintiff’s BAGILAANOE 

registered trademark (the “Mark”) in violation of the Lanham Act. Clerk’s 

defaults were entered against the Defendants who failed to respond to the 

complaint or otherwise make an appearance in this case.1 (ECF Nos. 48–49.) In 

reviewing the complaint, Judge Goodman determined that the Plaintiff has 

1 Although the Plaintiff’s complaint lists twenty Defendants, the Plaintiff’s dispute with five of 

those Defendants has since been resolved. The Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed its claims 

against Defendants Guangzhou Miaohuangqiu Trading Co., Ltd (# 7); Hejing (# 9); LA 

FOREOREUSE DE POINTE (# 13); Toamir (# 17); and # 20 Xingmian). (ECF Nos. 58, 61, 62.) And 

the Court has entered a consent judgment as to Defendant Xingmian (# 20). (ECF No. 63.) 

Accordingly, this order and judgment applies only to the remaining fifteen Defendants (the 

“Defaulting Defendants”), listed in Exhibit A to this order.

Case 1:22-cv-22363-RNS Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 1 of 5
sufficiently alleged and established the elements of both its trademark 

infringement and counterfeiting claims, under § 32, and its false designation of 

origin claims, under § 43. (Rep. & Rec. at 14–16.) Accordingly, he determined 

the Plaintiff is entitled to both statutory damages as well as injunctive relief. 

As to the statutory damages, although the Plaintiff sought $200,000 as to 

each Defendant, Judge Goodman awarded it only $125,000 per Defendant, 

apparently interpreting the damages provision of the Lanham Act to impose a 

cap of $2,000,000 per case. (Rep. & Rec. at 19–21.) Judge Goodman noted that 

if the Court were to award $200,000 for each of the fifteen Defaulting 

Defendants, that would amount to a total award of $3,000,000. (Id. at 20.) At 

$125,000 each, however, the total would amount to only $1,875,000. (Id. at 21.) 

Judge Goodman also determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to the permanent 

injunctive relief sought, as to the fifteen defaulting Defendants, as set forth in 

paragraph two of the Plaintiff’s proposed order. (Rep. & Rec. at 24 (citing ECF 

No. 50-3, 2–3).)

In its objections, the Plaintiff emphasizes that it “does not object to either 

the Recommendations for a permanent injunction, nor the award of $125,000 

per defaulting defendant.” (Pl.’s Objs. at 2 (emphasis in original).) Instead, the 

Plaintiff says it “objects only to the reasoning behind the computation of the 

award,” taking issue with Judge Goodman’s apparent assumption that the 

Lanham Act imposes a $2,000,000 maximum among all the defendants

collectively. (Id.) According to the Plaintiff, the $2,000,000 cap instead applies 

“per defendant, per trademark.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) In support of this 

interpretation, the Plaintiff points to several other district-court cases, some in 

this district but mostly from the Northern District of Illinois, where courts have 

interpreted the limitation to apply per defendant and not collectively to all the 

defendants in any given case. The Plaintiff also points to congressional intent, 

the interpretation applied in copyright cases, and policy considerations as all 

supporting the limit’s being applied per defendant and not per case. At the 

same time, the Plaintiff acknowledges other orders from this district that 

applied the $2,000,000 collectively.

As a result of the Plaintiff’s quarrel with Judge Goodman’s apparent 

reliance on the $2,000,000 limit’s applying collectively, it asks the Court to 

“uphold the amount of the award in the Report and Recommendations, but not 

for the reasons stated therein.” Presumably, then, the Plaintiff is content with

that part Judge Goodman’s report finding that the award is “sufficient to 

compensate Plaintiff, punish Defendants, and deter them and others from 

continuing to counterfeit or otherwise infringe Plaintiff’s trademark, consistent 

with the purpose of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c).” (Rep. & Rec. at 21.) Assuming that is 

the case, and since those findings are sufficient to support the award, the Court 

will adopt Judge Goodman’s recommendation on that basis. 

Case 1:22-cv-22363-RNS Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 2 of 5
But, for a number of reasons, the Court itself declines to opine on the 

proper application of the $2,000,000 statutory limit. First, as best the Court 

can discern from the Plaintiff’s briefing, the Plaintiff did not present its 

arguments, as to the application of the $2,000,000 limit, to the magistrate 

judge in the first instance. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th 

Cir. 2009) (holding that a court, in its discretion, need not consider arguments 

that were not, in the first instance, presented to the magistrate judge). Second, 

the Plaintiff has identified no controlling caselaw on the matter in the Eleventh 

Circuit (or any other circuit). And third, because other reasons adequately 

support the award, the Court’s thoughts on the matter would amount to 

nothing more than an advisory opinion. As a result, the Court largely sustains 

the Plaintiff’s objections, overruling them only to the extent the Plaintiff seeks 

an affirmative finding on the statutory-limitation issue from the Court.

2. Summary of Relief

A. Injunctive Relief

The Court adopts Judge Goodman’s recommendation as to permanent 

injunctive relief. (Rep. & Rec. at 24.) Accordingly, as to each Defaulting 

Defendant listed on Schedule A, attached hereto, their officers, directors, 

employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert or 

participation with any Defaulting Defendant having notice of this order are 

hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from:

a. using Plaintiff’s registered trademark in marketing, advertising, 

soliciting, selling or offering for sale, derivative or directly, which is not 

directly authorized by Plaintiff;

b. further infringing on the BAGILAANOE Mark;

Additionally, each Defaulting Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, 

agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert or 

participation with any Defendant and those with notice of this permanent 

injunction, including, without limitation, all financial institutions, payment

processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, or marketplace

platforms, including but not limited to Walmart, Inc., sponsored search engine 

or ad-word providers, credit cards, banks, merchant account providers, third 

party processors and other payment processing service providers, and Internet 

search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo (collectively, the “Third Party 

Providers”) and their related companies and affiliates on which this Court 

imposed restraints under the preliminary injunction shall:

i. immediately and permanently discontinue the use of the Plaintiff’s

Mark, on or in connection with all Internet based e-commerce stores 

owned and operated, or controlled by them, including the Internet 

Case 1:22-cv-22363-RNS Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 3 of 5
based ecommerce stores operating under the Seller IDs;

ii. apply any funds currently in Defaulting Defendants’ financial

accounts to satisfy the monetary judgments.

B. Monetary Damages

The Court also adopts Judge Goodman’s recommendation as to the 

statutory damages that should be awarded. Accordingly, the Court assesses an 

award of $125,000 against each Defaulting Defendant, for a total award of 

$1,875,000, based on the Court’s finding that the Defaulting Defendants 

infringed the Plaintiff’s Mark. In making this assessment, the Court has 

considered both the willfulness of the Defendants’ conduct, the adequacy of the 

award to compensate the Plaintiff and deter the Defaulting Defendants from 

continuing to counterfeit or otherwise infringe the Mark.

3. Conclusion

As set forth above, the Court adopts Judge Goodman’s recommendations 

as to damages and injunctive relief (ECF No. 75), largely sustains the Plaintiff’s 

unopposed objections (ECF No. 78), and thus grants in part and denies in part

the Plaintiff’s motion for final default judgment (ECF No. 50). An order entering 

final judgment will be filed separately.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida on September 12, 2023. 

_________________________________ 

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22363-RNS Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 4 of 5
Exhibit A

Defendant Number Defendant Name

1 Best Choice

2 CXHDZ

3 DAMAI

4 datongshifuledayaofangyouxiangongsi

5 dream-wonderland

6 Fun City Club Inc

8 HaoTeSai

10 Hunankeyuanzhinengkejiyouxiangongsi

11 HXZH

12 KEJIY

14 Liaocheng

15 MASOCIO

16 Shenzhenshixiximaoyiyouxiangongsi

18 USC

19 Win-Win

Case 1:22-cv-22363-RNS Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/12/2023 Page 5 of 5