Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Realplay Corp. et al

Filing 39

ORDER RE CONSENT JUDGMENT INCLUDING PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND VOLUNTARY ACTION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall in favor of Deckers Outdoor Corporation and against Realplay Corp., Cheung-Tzong Wang. Defendants, and all person in active concert, etc., are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from infringing upon any of the trade dresses and/or registered design patents identified in Exhibit A. Plaintiff and Defendants shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees associated with this action. Related to: Stipulation for Permanent Injunction 38 . ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (See attached document for details.) (lom)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Brent H. Blakely (SBN 157292) bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com Cindy Chan (SBN 247495) cchan@blakelylawgroup.com Jessica C. Covington (SBN 301816) jcovington@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP 1334 Parkview Avenue, Suite 280 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Telephone: (310) 546-7400 Facsimile: (310) 546-7401 Attorneys for Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, ) CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00754-CBM-JPRx ) a Delaware Corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER RE CONSENT JUDGMENT ) INCLUDING PERMANENT v. ) INJUNCTION AND VOLUNTARY ) ACTION OF DISMISSAL WITH ) PREJUDICE REALPLAY CORP., a California ) [JS-6] Corporation; and CHEUNG-TZONG ) WANG, an individual, and DOES 1-10, ) Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) WHEREAS Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation (collectively “Plaintiff” or “Deckers”) having filed a Complaint in this action charging Defendants Realplay Corp. and Cheung-Tzong Wang (“Defendants”) with Trade Dress Infringement, Patent Infringement, and Unfair Competition arising from Defendants’ manufacture, distribution, promotion, advertisement, offering for sale, and/or sale of footwear, of Deckers’ Bailey Button Boot Trade Dress and boot designs, to which Deckers owns design patents D599,999, D616,189, D582,650 and/or trade dress rights, including rights to the UGG® “Bailey Button” boot, by certain of Defendants’ footwear products identified by Style Names “TOM-01,” “TOM-05,” “TOM-06,” and “JEFF-02” 1 ORDER 1 (hereinafter “Accused Products”), examples of which are shown below: 2 3 4 5 6 7 UGG® Bailey Button Boot Design Patent D599,999 UGG® Bailey Button Boot Defendants’ Accused Product “TOM-06” UGG® Bailey Button Boot Design Patent D599,999 UGG® Bailey Button Boot Defendants’ Accused Product “JEFF-02” UGG® Cardy Boot Design Patent D582,650 UGG® Cardy Boot Defendants’ Accused Product “TOM-05” UGG® Bailey Button Triplet Boot Design Patent D616,189 UGG® Bailey Button Triplet Boot Defendants’ Accused Product “TOM-01” 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS, Deckers is the owner of the trade dresses and registered design patents identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto; WHEREAS, the parties hereto desiring to fully settle all of the claims in this action among the parties to this Consent Judgment; and WHEREAS, the parties herein have simultaneously entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release; WHEREAS Defendants have agreed to consent to the below judgment, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and all persons in active 10 concert and participation with them who receive actual notice of this Consent 11 Judgment are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from infringing upon any of 12 the trade dresses and/or registered design patents identified in Exhibit A, attached 13 hereto, either directly or contributorily in any manner, including: 14 (a) Challenging the validity, enforceability, or Deckers’ ownership of 15 the trade dresses and/or registered design patents identified in Exhibit A, attached 16 hereto; 17 (b) Manufacturing, purchasing, producing, distributing, circulating, 18 selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, advertising, promoting, displaying, 19 shipping, marketing and/or incorporating in advertising or marketing the Accused 20 Products or products which infringe upon the trade dresses and/or registered design 21 patents identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto; 22 (c) Committing any other act which falsely represents or which has the 23 effect of falsely representing that the goods and services of Defendants are licensed by, 24 authorized by, offered by, produced by, sponsored by, or in any other way associated 25 with Plaintiff; 26 (d) Knowingly assisting, aiding or attempting to assist or aid any other 27 person or entity in performing any of the prohibited activities referred to in Paragraphs 28 1(a) to 1(c) above. 3 ORDER 1 2 3 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties herein and has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121. 3. The execution of this stipulation shall serve to bind and obligate the 4 parties hereto. However, dismissal with prejudice of this action shall not have 5 preclusive effect on those who are not a party to this action or who are not specifically 6 released in the parties’ written settlement agreement, all claims against whom Plaintiff 7 expressly reserves. 8 9 10 4. Plaintiff and Defendants shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this action. 5. The jurisdiction of this Court is retained for the purpose of making any 11 further orders necessary or proper for the construction or modification of this 12 Stipulation/Order as well as the parties’ confidential settlement agreement in 13 connection with this action. 14 15 6. Except as otherwise provided herein, this action is fully resolved and dismissed with prejudice. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 DATED: June 16, 2016 __________________________ Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 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?