UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, INC.

v.

UNISOURCE DISCOVERY, LLC

and STEVEN A. CERASALE,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (the “Report”) [ECF No. 257] regarding Plaintiff Unisource Discovery, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against Count I (Cancellation of Trademark) of Defendants’ Counterclaim [DE 81] (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) [ECF No. 141] and Defendants’, Unisource Discovery, LLC and Steven A. Cerasale, Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counterclaim for Cancellation of Trademark (“Defendants’ Motion”) [ECF No. 151].

On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Unisource Discovery, LLC and Steven A. Cerasale. [ECF No. 1].

On November 1, 2020, the Court referred this matter to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 20].

On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Motion seeking summary judgment in its favor as to Defendants’ counterclaim for cancellation of trademark. [ECF No. 141].

On August 6, 2021, Defendants filed their Motion also seeking summary judgment in their favor as to their counterclaim for cancellation of trademark. [ECF No. 151].

On January 13, 2022, Judge Otazo- Reyes issued her Report recommending that both Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendants’ Motion be denied. [ECF No. 257].

On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants filed their respective

Objections to the Report. [ECF Nos. 262 & 263]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Having conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ Motion, and the record, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned analysis and recommendation that both Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendants’ Motion be denied. As to Plaintiff’s Objections, Defendants bring forth sufficient evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s subjective intent to defraud the United States Patent and Trademark Office. As to Defendants’ Objections, the Court shall not reconsider Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report in light of Plaintiff’s Affidavit, see [ECF No. 182-1], which was submitted after Defendants filed their Motion and has since been stricken from the record, see [ECF No. 210].

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 257], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Count I (Cancellation of Trademark) of Defendants’ Counterclaim [DE 81], [ECF No. 141], is DENIED.

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counterclaim for Cancellation of Trademark, [ECF No. 151], is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 14th day of March, 2022.

Df Bld

UNITED STATES DISTRICV JUDGE