Chloe SAS et al v. Sawabeh Information Services Co

Filing 898

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS by Judge Margaret M. Morrow. See order for details. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHLOE SAS, et al.,

12
13

Plaintiffs,
vs.

14
15
16
17
18

SAWABEH INFORMATION SERVICES
CO., et al.,
Defendants.

) CASE NO. CV 11-04147 MMM (MANx)
)
)
)
) JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On April 6, 2013, Judge Gary A. Feess entered an order granting the motion for default judgment
filed by plaintiffs Chloe SAS, Alfred Dunhill Limited, Officine Panerai AG, Montblanc-Simplo GmbH,
Cartier Interational AG, and Lange Uhren GmbH’s (collectively, “plaintiffs”) against defendants Cctrue
International Trade Co., Ltd., (“Cctrue”), Fancysaler Trading Co. (“Fancysaler”), Fuzhou Sunshine
Trade Co., Ltd. (“Fuzhou”), Hengtai International (“Hengtai”), Kk Fashion Love Zone (“Kk Fashion”),
Love in Apparel Trade Co., Ltd. (“Love in Apparel”), Melchic International Trade Co., Ltd.
(“Melchic”), Mystockwatch Co., Ltd. (“Mystockwatch”), Seven Star Replicass (“Seven Star”), Shanghai
Taolan International Trade Limited Company (“Shangain Taolan”), Sinoestar Co., Ltd. (“Sinoestar”),
V52 International Trade Co., Ltd. (“V52"), Win-Win Trade Co., Ltd. (“Win-Win”), www.Ecwatch.net

1

(“Ecwatch”), Euromed International Trading Co., Limited (“Euromed”), Orient-Online Co., Ltd.

2

(“Orient-Online”), Richen-Online Co., Ltd. (“Richen-Online”), and Win International Trade (“Win

3

International”).1

4

On December 6, 2013, Judge Feess entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for default

5

judgment against defendants Yongchuang Trade Corp. (“Yongchuang”), Vertex Online Co., Ltd.

6

(“Vertex”), Superoceans Co., Ltd. (“Superoceans”), and Season-online Co., Ltd. (“Season-online).2

7

On October 8, 2013, Judge Feess granted partial summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on claims

8

against defendants Sawabeh Information Services Co. (“SISCOM”) and TradeKey PVT, Ltd.

9

(“TradeKey”), finding these defendants liable for contributory counterfeiting, contributory infringement,

10

and unfair competition.3 On March 18, 2014, he granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary

11

judgment against defendants Waleed Abalkhail and Junaid Mansoor, finding them liable for contributory

12

counterfeiting, contributory infringement, and unfair competition.4

13

On February 19, 2015, the court entered a stipulated order in plaintiffs’ favor that awarded

14

minimum statutory damages under the Lanham Act against SISCOM, TradeKey, Abalkhail and

15

Mansoor.5 Accordingly,

16
17
18

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Memorandum and Order Regarding Motion for Default Judgment, Docket No. 261 (Apr. 6,

2012).
2

Minutes (In Chambers): Memorandum & Order Re: Motion for Default Judgment, Docket No.
617 (Dec. 6, 2013).
3

Minutes (In Chambers): Order Re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Docket
No. 582 (Oct. 8, 2013).
4

Minutes (In Chambers): Redacted Order Re: Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Docket No. 700 (Mar. 18, 2014).
5

Stipulated Order Entering Judgment for Plaintiffs for Statutory Damages, Docket No. 892 (Feb.
19, 2015); see also Ex Parte Application for Summary Adjudication as to Minimum Statutory Damages,
Docket No. 889 (Feb. 12, 2015).
2

1

1.

2
3

Cctrue;
2.

4
5

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

That plaintiffs recover $120,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from Seven
Star;

10.

20
21

That plaintiffs recover $180,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Mystockwatch;

18
19

That plaintiffs recover $360,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Melchic;

16
17

That plaintiffs recover $180,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from Love
in Apparel;

14
15

That plaintiffs recover $240,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from Kk
Fashion;

12
13

That plaintiffs recover $480,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Hengtai; and

10
11

That plaintiffs recover $600,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Fuzhou;

8
9

That plaintiffs recover $240,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Fancysaler;

6
7

That plaintiffs recover $480,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from

That plaintiffs recover $120,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Shanghai Taolin;

11.

That plaintiffs recover $240,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Sinoestar;

22
23

12.

That plaintiffs recover $240,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from V52;

24

13.

That plaintiffs recover $420,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from WinWin;

25
26

14.

Ecwatch;

27
28

That plaintiffs recover $480,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from

15.

That plaintiffs recover $60,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
3

1
2

Euromed;

16.

International;

3
4

17.

18.

7
8

19.

20.

21.

That plaintiffs recover $1,900,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Superoceans;

22.

15
16

That plaintiffs recover $1,500,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Vertex;

13
14

That plaintiffs recover $100,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Yongchuang;

11
12

That plaintiffs recover $300,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Orient-Online;

9
10

That plaintiffs recover $540,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Richen-online;

5
6

That plaintiffs recover $120,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from Win

That plaintiffs recover $1,100,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
Season-online;

23.

That Cctrue, Fancysaler, Fuzhou, Hengtai, Kk Fashion, Love in Apparel, Melchic,

17

Mystockwatch, Seven Star, Shanghai Taolan, Sinoestar, V52, Win-Win, Ecwatch,

18

Euromed, Orient-Online, Richen-Online, Win International, Yongchuang, Vertex,

19

Superoceans, and Season-online (collectively, the “Defaulting Defendants”); their

20

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert and

21

participation with them who receive actual notice of this judgment, are enjoined from:

22

a.

using any of plaintiffs’ marks, or any colorable imitation thereof or any mark

23

confusingly similar thereto or likely to dilute by blurring and/or tarnishing any

24

of Plaintiffs’ Marks, or counterfeit reproductions thereof, in advertising,

25

marketing, promoting, selling, offering for sale, designing, creating,

26

manufacturing, distributing, delivering, shipping, importing, or exporting any

27

goods or services or facilitating, inducing, or assisting any of the activity set

28

forth above;
4

1

b.

using any of plaintiffs’ marks, or any colorable imitation thereof or any mark

2

confusing similar thereto or likely to dilute by blurring and/or tarnishing any of

3

plaintiffs’ marks, or counterfeit reproductions thereof, in any text or content

4

including, without limitation, any part of keywords; mobile application or

5

optimization; applications; metatags; metadata; creating, buying, or selling of

6

links; blogs; on-line postings; domain names; forums; social media; or otherwise

7

in any way that directs customers to the Defaulting Defendants or Defaulting

8

Defendants’ websites, including search engine optimization; or in any way that

9

constitutes or leads to advertising or optimizing;

10

c.

operating or hosting any websites used by the Defaulting Defendants to sell or

11

offer goods using any of plaintiffs’ marks or any colorable imitation thereof or

12

any mark confusingly similar thereto or likely to dilute by blurring and/or

13

tarnishing any of plaintiffs’ marks, or counterfeit reproductions thereof;

14

d.

making or employing any other use of plaintiffs’ marks, or any colorable

15

imitation thereof or any mark confusingly similar thereto or likely to dilute by

16

blurring and/or tarnishing any of plaintiffs’ marks, or counterfeit reproductions

17

thereof;

18

e.

using any false designation of origin, false description or representation, or any

19

other thing calculated or likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the

20

trade or public or to deceive the trade or public into believing that the Defaulting

21

Defendants’ activities, including the sale of goods bearing counterfeit plaintiffs’

22

marks, are in any way sponsored, licensed, endorsed, authorized, affiliated, or

23

connected with and/or originated from plaintiffs;

24

f.

doing any other acts or things calculated or likely to cause confusion or mistake

25

in the mind of the public or to lead purchasers, consumers, or investors into the

26

belief that the products or services promoted, offered, or sponsored by Defaulting

27

Defendants emanate from or originate with plaintiffs or their licensees, or are

28

somehow sponsored, licensed, endorsed, authorized, affiliated, or connected with
5

1

plaintiffs and/or originate from plaintiffs;

2

g.

secreting, destroying, altering, removing, deleting any electronic copies, or

3

otherwise dealing with the unauthorized products or offers to sell or means of

4

making such marks and products, or any books, documentation or records thereto

5

(electronic or otherwise) which contain any information relating to selling,

6

marketing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, displaying, designing,

7

creating, importing, manufacturing, producing, distributing, or circulating of all

8

unauthorized products which infringe plaintiffs’ marks;

9

h.

10

otherwise competing unfairly with plaintiffs or any of their authorized retailers
or dealers in any manner; and

11

i.

facilitating, inducing, assisting, aiding, abetting, or supplying the means for any

12

other person or business entity to engage in or perform any of the activities

13

referred to in the above subparagraphs (a) through (h), or effecting any

14

assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or utilizing any

15

other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the

16

prohibitions set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (h).

17
18

24.

That Defaulting Defendants are directed to:
a.

permanently delete, remove and recall from all websites, blogs, online auctions,

19

stores, shops, markets, outlets, catalogues, or other channels of commerce (and

20

all of the foregoing applying to electronic forms in addition to brick and mortar

21

or paper), any listings for goods bearing plaintiffs’ marks, or replicas/copies of

22

goods bearing plaintiffs’ marks, or that otherwise bear, contain, display, or utilize

23

plaintiffs’ marks, or any mark confusingly similar thereto, or likely to dilute by

24

blurring and/or tarnishing any of plaintiffs’ marks, or counterfeit reproductions

25

thereof;

26

b.

in accordance with § 36 of the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1118, deliver

27

up for destruction all counterfeit goods that bear plaintiffs’ marks, and/or any

28

replicas/copies of goods bearing plaintiffs’ marks, or goods that otherwise bear,
6

1

contain, display, or utilize plaintiffs’ marks, or any mark confusingly similar

2

thereto, or any mark likely to dilute by blurring and/or tarnishing any of

3

plaintiffs’ marks, or counterfeit reproductions thereof, that are in Defaulting

4

Defendants’ possession, custody, or control and all means of making the same;

5

c.

in accordance with § 36 of the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1118, deliver

6

up for destruction any and all guarantees, circulars, price lists, labels, signs,

7

prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, advertising and promotional matter,

8

electronic files, and other materials in the possession or control of Defaulting

9

Defendants (and all of the foregoing applying to electronic files and copies in

10

addition to paper copies) bearing plaintiffs’ marks, or any mark confusingly

11

similar thereto, or any mark likely to dilute by blurring and/or tarnishing any of

12

plaintiffs’ marks, or counterfeit reproductions thereof;

13

25.

That Defaulting Defendants file with the court and serve on plaintiffs’ counsel within

14

thirty (30) days after service on Defaulting Defendants of this judgment, a report in

15

writing under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which each of the

16

Defaulting Defendants has complied with the injunction, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §

17

1116(a);

18

26.

19
20

That plaintiffs recover $71,000 in statutory damages under the Lanham Act from
TradeKey, SISCOM, Waleed Abalkhail, and Junaid Mansoor, jointly and severally;

27.

That TradeKey, SISCOM, Waleed Abalkhail, and Junaid Mansoor, their officers, agents,

21

servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or

22

participation with them who receive actual notice of this judgment, are enjoined from:

23

a.

permitting, allowing, or facilitating customers, users, or members of

24

www.TradeKey.com, www.saudicommerce.com, and www.b2bfreezone.com,

25

or any other website affiliated with them to post or display listings to buy, sell,

26

manufacture, or distribute products bearing plaintiffs’ marks or any colorable

27

imitation of plaintiffs’ marks;

28

b.

displaying listings either using the plaintiffs’ marks or responding to search
7

1

queries for plaintiffs’ marks on the websites;

2

c.

using plaintiffs’ marks as keywords, adwords, or any other type of metadata; and

3

d.

allowing or advising any person or entity on how to create or post listings for

4
5

products they know or have reason to know infringe plaintiffs’ marks;
28.

That TradeKey, SISCOM, Waleed Abalkhail, and Junaid Mansoor, their officers, agents,

6

servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or

7

participation with them who receive actual notice of this judgment, are directed to

8

monitor their websites on an ongoing basis for compliance and must, upon written

9

notice, remove or disable access to any listing that plaintiffs identify as infringing, or that

10
11

otherwise comes to their attention as infringing plaintiffs’ marks; and
29.

That the action be, and is hereby, dismissed.

12
13

DATED: February 27, 2015
MARGARET M. MORROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8