Sid Dickens Inc v. Rodney F Decker et al
Filing
17
CONSENT JUDGMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Dale S. Fischer in favor of Sid Dickens Inc against Lori Pamela Gelbart, Rodney F Decker Related to: Stipulation for Judgment and Permanent Injunction 16 . (rne)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DAVID A. DILLARD, CA Bar No. 97515
david.dillard@cph.com
G. WARREN BLEEKER, CA Bar No. 210834
warren.bleeker@cph.com
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
655 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2300
Post Office Box 29001
Glendale, California 91209-9001
Telephone: (626) 795-9900
Facsimile: (626) 577-8800
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SID DICKENS, INC.
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
SID DICKENS, INC.
Case No. CV12-07682 DSF (SSx)
13
Plaintiff,
[CONSENT JUDGMENT AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
NOTE CHANGE BY COURT
14
15
16
17
18
vs.
RODNEY F. DECKER, an individual,
LAUREN P. GELBART an individual,
and PAMELA JOY POLLAK, an
individual,
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
1
Based upon the stipulation of Plaintiff Sid Dickens, Inc. (“SDI”) and
2
Defendants Rodney F. Decker (“Decker”) and Lori P. Gelbart, sued erroneously
3
as Lauren P. Gelbart (“Gelbart”), and for good cause showing, JUDGMENT IS
4
ENTERED AS FOLLOWS as to all claims asserted by SDI in this action against
5
Decker and Gelbart:
6
7
1.
This Court has jurisdiction over SDI, Decker and Gelbart and of the
subject matter of this action.
8
2.
Venue is proper in this judicial district.
9
3.
SDI is the owner of the following valid and enforceable United
10
States Trademark Registrations:
11
Registration No.
3,573,161
Mark
SID DICKENS
Goods
Tiles, namely artistic wall tiles
primarily of plaster, clay, gypsum,
glass, ceramic or earthenware.
4,088,345
MEMORY BLOCK
Tiles, namely artistic wall tiles.
12
13
14
15
16
4.
SDI owns existing common law trademark rights in the mark:
17
18
19
This mark and the marks identified in SDI’s U.S. Trademark Registrations are
20
referred to as “SDI Marks” for purposes of this Consent Judgment.
21
5.
SDI owns trade dress rights in the overall look of its collectible wall
22
plaques (“Memory Blocks”) including the size, shape, designs, and relative
23
dimensions of the various components or features that contribute to the overall
24
appearance. These trade dress rights are referred to as “SDI Trade Dress” for
25
purposes of this Consent Judgment.
26
27
6.
The SDI Marks and SDI Trade Dress are distinctive, either by virtue
of being inherently distinct or through the acquisition of secondary meaning. The
28
-2CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
1
SDI Trade Dress is distinctive because it has acquired secondary meaning and is
2
nonfunctional.
3
7.
The SDI Marks and SDI Trade Dress are conclusively determined to
4
be valid and enforceable against Gelbart and Decker for as long as SDI and
5
anyone in privity with SDI owns the SDI Marks, or SDI Trade Dress, even if a
6
subsequent infringement action is brought by SDI, or by any entity in privity with
7
it, against Gelbart and/or Decker for a product not identified in this action;
8
8.
Gelbart and Decker admit they participated in Defendant Pamela
9
Pollack’s sales of products which they later found out contained marks that are
10
identical or confusingly similar to the SDI Marks and trade dress that is identical
11
or confusingly similar to the SDI Trade Dress, in this District and elsewhere.
12
Gelbart and Decker further admit that their participation in the sale of products
13
with marks that are identical or confusingly similar to the SDI Marks and trade
14
dress that is identical or confusingly similar to the SDI Trade Dress, alone or in
15
combination with other words and other items, is likely to cause confusion that
16
accused goods and services emanate from or are sponsored or authorized by SDI.
17
9.
Gelbart and Decker are precluded from contesting the validity,
18
ownership or rights in the SDI Marks or SDI Trade Dress in any future litigation
19
or dispute.
20
10.
Gelbart, Decker and all other persons, firms or entities acting in
21
concert or participating with one or both of them, are hereby permanently
22
enjoined, directly or indirectly, from:
23
a. using any of the SDI Marks or any marks confusingly similar
24
thereto, or any colorable imitation thereof, in connection with
25
the marketing, promotion, advertising, offer for sale, or sale
26
of any products;
27
b. using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or
28
colorable imitation of SDI Trade Dress in connection with the
-3-
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
1
offer for sale or sale of wall plaques;
2
c. engaging in any other activity constituting an infringement of
3
any of the SDI Marks or SDI Trade Dress or constituting any
4
infringement of SDI’s rights in or right to use or exploit the
5
SDI Marks or SDI Trade Dress;
6
d. using any false designation of origin or false description
7
which can or is likely to lead the public, or individual
8
members thereof, erroneously to believe that any product or
9
service was or is circulated, displayed, distributed, offered for
10
sale, sold, manufactured, licensed, sponsored, approved, or
11
authorized by or for SDI, when such is not true in fact; and
12
e. inducing, assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or
13
business entity in engaging in or performing any of the
14
activities referred to in subparagraphs 10(a) through 10(d)
15
above.
16
11.
Gelbart and Decker each represent that each, respectively, has not
17
been and is not in possession, custody or control of any goods, machinery or other
18
instruments used to manufacture or create any goods, advertising, promotional or
19
marketing materials that contain, utilize or embody any of SDI Marks or SDI
20
Trade Dress.
21
12.
Gelbart agrees that if SDI believes that Gelbart has violated this
22
Consent Judgment in any way, SDI may bring an action against Gelbart for at
23
least trademark and trade dress infringement and for breach of contract, and
24
Gelbart consents to the filing of such an action in this District.
25
13.
Decker agrees that if SDI believes that Decker has violated this
26
Consent Judgment in any way, SDI may bring an action against Decker for at
27
least trademark and trade dress infringement and for breach of contract, and
28
Decker consents to the filing of such an action in this District.
-4-
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
1
14.
Gelbart agrees to provide truthful declarations, information and
2
testimony in this matter in support of SDI’s remaining claims upon the receipt of
3
reasonable requests for such by SDI and/or its counsel.
4
15.
Decker agrees to provide truthful declarations, information and
5
testimony in this matter in support of SDI’s remaining claims upon the receipt of
6
reasonable requests for such by SDI and/or its counsel.
7
16.
Gelbart and Decker waive notice of entry of this Consent Judgment
8
and Permanent Injunction and waive the right to appeal therefrom or to test its
9
validity, and SDI, Gelbart and Decker consent to its immediate entry in
10
accordance with its terms. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties
11
concerning enforcement of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction.
12
13
14
15
16
17.
Judgment shall be entered in favor of SDI and against Gelbart and
Decker.
18.
The parties shall bear their own costs, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred with this action.
19.
This Court shall retain jurisdiction concerning enforcement of this
17
Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
12/18/12
Dated: ______________________
_____________________________
United States District Court Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
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?