ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the following:

Plaintiffs initiated this action against Defendant on claims for: (1) infringement of Plaintiffs' federally registered trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ("Count I"); (2) false designation of origin and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ("Count II"); (3) common law trademark infringement ("Count III"); and (4) common law unfair competition ("Count IV"). (Doc. 1.) After Defendants failed to respond or answer, Plaintiffs requested and received a clerk's entry of default. (Docs. 11, 12.) Plaintiffs now move for a final default judgment against Defendant and a permanent injunction. (Doc. 13 ("Motion").) The Motion was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith, who recommends granting default judgment as to Counts I-IV and entering a permanent injunction against Defendant. (Doc. 14 ("R&R").) Based on his finding that Plaintiffs have not submitted the necessary information to establish their damages, costs, or fees ("Monetary Relief"), Magistrate Judge Smith also recommends that the Court either deny Plaintiffs' request for Monetary Relief or, alternatively, carry the matter forward for future consideration ("Alternative Recommendation"). (Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs object to the R&R. (Doc. 15 ("Objection").)

When a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings, the district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. The district court must consider the record and factual issues based on the record independent of the magistrate judge's report. Ernest S. ex rel. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiffs object only to the recommendation that the Court deny their request for fees and costs.1 (Doc. 15, p. 2.) Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court: (1) adopt Magistrate Judge Smith's Alternative Recommendation; (2) allow Plaintiffs to submit a bill of costs; and (3) "decide issues of liability for [attorney's] fees before receiving submissions on the value of services." (Doc. 15, p. 3.)

"Costs—other than attorney's fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Upon request, the Court must allow a party to file "adversary submissions" on a motion for attorney's fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(C). The Court "may decide issues of liability for fees before receiving submissions on the value of services." Id. (emphasis added).

Under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, courts may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party "in exceptional cases." 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1304 (11th Cir. 1999). In the patent context, the Supreme Court recently defined an "exceptional case" as "one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated." Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014). District courts determine whether a case is "exceptional" on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances. Id.

After careful consideration of the arguments raised in Plaintiffs' Objection, the Court sustains the Objection and adopts the Alternative Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.