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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Theodore S. Maceiko (State Bar No. 150211) 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) 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) 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?