Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Jeans Warehouse Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER RE PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 16 by Judge S. James Otero: Defendants Jeans Warehouse Inc., Quinus Ceqin Chen andShoe Box Trading and their agents etc permanently restrained and enjoined from infringing upon Plaintiffs Bailey Button Boot Trade Dress and/or Bailey Button Design Patents. Plaintiff and Defendants shall bear their own costs and attorneys fees associated with this action. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (lc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Brent H. Blakely (SBN 157292) bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com Cindy Chan (SBN 247495) cchan@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP 1334 Parkview Avenue, Suite 280 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Telephone: (310) 546-7400 Facsimile: (310) 546-7401 JS-6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, ) CASE NO. 2:14-CV-00706-SJO-PJW ) a Delaware Corporation, ) ) ORDER RE PERMANENT Plaintiff, ) INJUNCTION AND VOLUNTARY v. ) DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH JEANS WAREHOUSE INC., a Hawaii, ) PREJUDICE Corporation; QUINUS CEQIN CHEN, an ) ) individual; SHOE BOX TRADING, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10, ) ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) WHEREAS Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation having filed a Complaint 20 in this action charging Defendants Jeans Warehouse Inc., Quinus Ceqin Chen and 21 Shoe Box Trading (collectively “Defendants”) have entered into a Settlement 22 Agreement and Mutual Release as to the claims in the above referenced matter. 23 Defendants, having stipulated to the below terms, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this Stipulation for 25 Permanent Injunction and has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof pursuant to 15 26 U.S.C. § 1121. 27 2. 28 Deckers is the owner of the Bailey Button Boot Trade Dress, which is characterized, inter alia, by 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1  Classic suede boot styling made famous by the UGG brand; 2  Overlapping of front and rear panels on the lateral side of the boot shaft; 3  Curved top edges on the overlapping panels; 4  Exposed fleece-type lining edging the overlapping panels and top of the 5 boot shaft; and 6  7 8 9 One or more buttons (depending on the height of the boot) prominently featured on the lateral side of the boot shaft adjacent the overlapping panels. Exemplars of Deckers’ UGG® boots that bear the Bailey Button Boot Trade Dress are depicted below. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 3. Many of Deckers’ UGG® footwear designs, including those with the 18 Bailey Button Boot Trade Dress, are also protected by design patents issued by the 19 United States Patent and Trademark Office. Design Patents for UGG® Bailey Button 20 Boot styles include, but are not limited to, U.S. Patent Nos. D599,999 for the “Bailey 21 Button Single” boot (registered on September 15, 2009) and D616,189 for the “Bailey 22 Button Triplet” boot (registered on May 25, 2010) (hereinafter “Bailey Button Design 23 Patents”). 24 4. The claims alleged by Plaintiff in the present lawsuit arise from 25 Defendants’ manufacture, distribution, promotion, advertisement, offering for sale, 26 and/or sale of footwear, the designs of which Deckers has alleged infringe upon its 27 Bailey Button Boot Trade Dress and Bailey Button Design Patents (“Disputed 28 Products”). 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 5. Defendants specifically deny and continue to deny each and every 2 allegation of wrongdoing, violation of any law, statutes, regulation, agreement or 3 policy, and any liability alleged by Deckers. 4 6. Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and all persons in active 5 concert and participation with it who receive actual notice of this Stipulation for 6 Permanent Injunction are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from infringing 7 upon Plaintiff’s Bailey Button Boot Trade Dress and/or Bailey Button Design Patents, 8 either directly or contributorily in any manner, including: 9 (a) Manufacturing, importing, advertising, marketing, promoting, 10 supplying, distributing, offering for sale, or selling the Disputed Products or any other 11 products which bear Plaintiff’s Bailey Button Boot Trade Dress or any designs 12 confusingly similar thereto and/or products bearing designs that infringe upon the 13 Bailey Button Design Patents and/or the overall appearance thereof; 14 15 (b) Delivering, holding for sale, returning, transferring or otherwise moving, storing or disposing in any manner the Disputed Products; 16 (c) Committing any other act which falsely represents or which has the 17 effect of falsely representing that the goods and services of Defendants are licensed by, 18 authorized by, offered by, produced by, sponsored by, or in any other way associated 19 with Plaintiff; 20 (d) Assisting, aiding or attempting to assist or aid any other person or 21 entity in performing any of the prohibited activities referred to in Paragraphs 5(a) to 22 5(c) above. 23 24 25 7. Plaintiff and Defendants shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this action. 8. The execution of this Stipulation for Permanent Injunction shall serve to 26 bind and obligate the parties hereto. However, dismissal with prejudice of this action 27 shall not have preclusive effect on those who are not a party to this action, all claims 28 against whom Plaintiff expressly reserves. 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 9. The jurisdiction of this Court is retained for the purpose of making any 2 further orders necessary or proper for the construction or modification of this 3 Stipulation for Permanent Injunction, the enforcement thereof and the punishment of 4 any violations thereof. Except as otherwise provided herein, this action is fully 5 resolved with prejudice. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 9, 2014 __________________________ Hon. S. James Otero United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER

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?