Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. v. Kevin Lamar et al
Filing
40
CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter, PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed by Judge John F. Walter against defendants (se)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Theodore S. Maceiko (State Bar No. 150211)
ted@maceikoip.com
MACEIKO IP
3770 Highland Avenue, Suite 207
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 545-3311
Facsimile: (310) 545-3344
Brent Sokol (State Bar No. 167537)
bdsokol@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
Telephone: (213) 489-3939
Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MAD DOGG ATHLETICS, INC.
David M. Bass (State Bar No. 117199)
dbass@basslawla.com
DAVID M. BASS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-789-1152
Facsimile: 310-789-1149
Previously
JS-6
Attorneys for Defendants
KEVIN LAMAR, LAMAR HEALTH &
FITNESS CONSULTING, LLC and WORLD
TRIATHALON CORPORATION
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MAD DOGG ATHLETICS, INC.,
a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN LAMAR, LAMAR HEALTH
& FITNESS CONSULTING LLC,
ALAN COCKRILL, WORLD
TRIATHALON CORPORATION
d/b/a IRONMAN FITNESS, CIXI ETE FITNESS EQUIPMENT CO.,
LTD., COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
LAI-3126645v1
CASE NO. CV 11-0599 JFW (CWX)
Assigned for all Purposes to
John F. Walter
CONSENT JUDGMENT AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1
WHEREAS plaintiff Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (“Mad Dogg”) and
2
defendants, Kevin Lamar, Lamar Health & Fitness Consulting LLC and Albert
3
Cockrill (collectively “Defendants”) have agreed in a separate agreement to
4
settlement of the matter in issue between them and to entry of this judgment, it is
5
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
6
7
8
9
1.
Mad Dogg alleged claims including claims for Patent Infringement and
Copyright Infringement.
2.
The Court has jurisdiction over each of the plaintiff Mad Dogg and the
Defendants in this action, by consent or otherwise and over the subject matter in
10
issue based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and (b), 1367(a) and 15 U.S.C.
11
§ 1121(a). The Court further has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms and
12
provisions of the Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction. Venue is proper in
13
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(a) and (b).
14
3.
Mad Dogg is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of
15
California, and has its principal place of business at 2111 Narcissus Court, Venice,
16
California 90291.
17
18
19
4.
Defendant Kevin Lamar (“Lamar”) is an individual residing at 2063
Pintail Drive, Longmont, Colorado 80504.
5.
Defendant Lamar Health & Fitness Consulting LLC (“LHF”) is a
20
Colorado limited liability company having a principal place of business at 2063
21
Pintail Drive, Longmont, CO 80504.
22
23
24
25
26
27
6.
Defendant Albert Cockrill is an individual residing at 1101 Oak
Meadow Blvd., Jonesboro, Arkansas, 72401.
7.
Defendants have imported, made, used, sold, offered for sale or
distributed Ironman IC Summit bikes.
8.
Mad Dogg has obtained and is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos.
6,881,178 and 7,455,627 which are valid and enforceable throughout the United
28
LAI-3126645v1
-2-
1
States for their remaining term. A copy of those patents are attached hereto as
2
Exhibits 1-2.
3
9.
Mad Dogg also owns the copyright for the works set forth in U.S.
4
Copyright Registration Application Serial Nos. 1-532073831 and 1-537192571. A
5
copy of those applications are attached hereto as Exhibits 3-4.
6
10.
The manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or importation of the
7
Ironman IC Summit Bike constitutes infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,881,178
8
and 7,455,627.
9
11.
The owner manual and video distributed with the Ironman IC Summit
10
bikes are substantially similar to the works set forth in U.S. Copyright Registration
11
Application Serial Nos. 1-532073831 and 1-537192571, and Defendants’ copying
12
or other distribution of the Ironman IC Summit owner manual and video constitutes
13
infringement of these copyrights.
14
12.
Defendants, their agents, officers, servants, employees, and attorneys,
15
and all persons in active consent and participation with them who receive actual
16
notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are hereby permanently
17
enjoined from engaging in any of the following activities:
18
(a)
from infringing, either directly or contributorily and from
19
inducing others to infringe any of Mad Dogg’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,881,178 and
20
7,455,627; and
21
(b)
from directly or indirectly infringing Mad Dogg’s copyrights in
22
the manual and video that are the subject of U.S. Copyright Registration
23
Application Serial Nos. 1-532073831 and 1-537192571 by using any reproduction,
24
copy or colorable imitation or designation substantially similar thereto, and from
25
inducing others to infringe.
26
13.
Service by mail upon Defendants, addressed to David M. Bass, David
27
M. Bass & Associates, Inc., 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200, Los Angeles,
28
California 90067, of a copy of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction
LAI-3126645v1
-3-
1
entered by the Court is deemed sufficient notice to Defendants under Rule 65(d) of
2
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It shall not be necessary for Defendants to
3
sign any form of acknowledgment of service.
4
14.
The parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.
5
15.
All remaining causes of action against Defendants are hereby
6
dismissed with prejudice.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: __6/21/11
10
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
Approved as to form and content:
MACEIKO IP
JONES DAY
15
16
17
By:
Theodore S. Maceiko
18
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MAD DOGG ATHLETICS, INC.
19
Dated:
, 2011
20
21
22
23
24
FAEGRE & BENSON, LLP
By:
Darrell M. Daley
26
Attorneys for Defendants
KEVIN LAMAR, LAMAR HEALTH &
FITNESS CONSULTING, LLC and
ALBERT COCKRILL
27
Dated:
25
, 2011
28
LAI-3126645v1
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?