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)
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?