OPINION & ORDER A jury found 375 Canal LLC liable for contributory trademark infringement on March 4, 2019 and awarded Plaintiff Omega SA statutory damages totaling $1,100,000. Plaintiff now moves: (1) to amend the final judgment to include permanent injunctive relief; and (2) for entitlement to attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the final judgment to include permanent injunctive relief is GRANTED, as MODIFIED; Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest is DENIED.BACKGROUNDPlaintiff Omega SA (“Omega”) and dismissed Plaintiff Swatch SA commenced this action in September 2012 alleging that Defendant 375 Canal, LLC (“375 Canal” or “Defendant”)1 knowingly rented space at 375 Canal Street to a tenant who sold counterfeit watches. The Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss in May 2013, Dkt. 22, and discovery closed in early 2016. Dkt. 47. After the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in December 2016,2 a trial date was set. The day before the final pretrial conference was scheduled, however, 375 Canal alerted the Court to falsehoods in a declaration submitted by one of Plaintiff’s witnesses. Dkt. 141. Since this declaration had been relied upon in denying 375 Canal’s summary judgment motion, the Court postponed the trial date and granted Defendant leave to move for reconsideration of summary judgment and for sanctions. See Transcript, Dkt. 151. On March 13, 2018, the Court denied 375 Canal’s motion for sanctions and reconsideration of summary judgment. Dkt. 206. Unable to settle on the remaining claim, the parties proceeded to trial. Dkts. 219-22.Trial began on February 25, 2019. After a four-day trial, the jury unanimously found 375 Canal liable for contributory infringement of four of Omega’s federally-registered trademarks. See Dkt. 293. The jury also found that the infringing marks were counterfeit and that Defendant’s conduct was willful. Id. The jury awarded Plaintiff $275,000 for each of four Omega trademarks infringed, totaling $1,100,000. Id. On March 12, 2019, the Court entered judgment for Omega and against Defendant, awarding Omega $1.1 million in damages, plus costs and post-judgment interest. Dkt. 298.ANALYSIS1. Injunctive ReliefA. Legal StandardThe Lanham Act expressly authorizes district courts to enter permanent injunctions to prevent future trademark infringement by a defendant. 15 U.S.C. §1116; see, e.g., Innovation Ventures LLC v. Ultimate One Distrib. Corp., 176 F. Supp. 3d 137, 169 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). A permanent injunction is appropriate upon a showing by the plaintiff that (i) it has suffered irreparable injury; (ii) remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (iii) considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (iv) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 L.Ed. 2d 641 (2006)A court’s power to enjoin future conduct, however, is not unfettered. Courts “cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large,” Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub. Grp., Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (quoting Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 832 (2d Cir.1930)), and “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S. Ct. 2545, 2558, 61 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1979); Vives v. City of New York, 305 F. Supp. 2d 289, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 405 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2005). Consistent with this principle, the federal rules limit the binding effect of an injunction to “the parties[,]” “ the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys[,]” and “ other persons [with whom they] are in active concert or participation[,]” provided they receive “ actual notice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).B. Analysis375 Canal does not oppose entry of a permanent injunction in this case; but seeks to strike the provisions in Omega’s proposed judgment which, in Defendant’s view: (1) seek to bind buildings other than 375 Canal LLC and legal entities other than 375 Canal; (2) place affirmative burdens on 375 Canal “far more onerous than necessary to redress the minimal risk of future harm to Omega,” Def. Opp. to Inj., Dkt. 319 at 1; and (3) are redundant.3Plaintiff prevailed at trial against 375 Canal LLC for contributory trademark infringement based on the sale of a counterfeit watch at a specific location-namely, 375 Canal Street. The language in Omega’s proposed amended judgment would bind 375 Canal, along with its “parent, subsidiaries, divisions, predecessors, partners, stockholders, members, affiliates, officers, directors, attorneys, agents, employees, representatives, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice,” and “the land and building located at 375 Canal as well as any other real property owned or managed by 375 Canal, LLC,” Pl.’s Rev. Ex. A, Dkt. 320,
