Arcona, Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC, et al
Filing
138
JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, ANDDECREED that: 1. Pursuant to the Courts Order Granting Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 129), and Order on Plaintiffs Request(ECF No. 136), judgment is e ntered in favor of Defendants and againstPlaintiff on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action for Trademark Counterfeiting of Arconas 079 Trademark Registration pursuant to the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984. 2. Plaintiffs Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth causes of action for trademark infringement of Arconas 079 Trademark Registration and unfair competition (Federal and State Law), respectively, all of which are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. Pursuant to the Courts Order on Plaintiffs Req uest (ECF No. 136), Defendants counterclaims for non-infringement and cancellation of Arconas 079 Trademark Registration are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 4. All other dates and deadlines in this case are hereby VACATED; and 5. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (vv)
1
JS-6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
9
10
11
ARCONA, INC., a California
corporation,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-07058 ODW (JPRx)
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff,
v.
The Hon. Otis D. Wright II
FARMACY BEAUTY, LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company,
DAVID C. CHUNG, an individual, and
MARK VEEDER, an individual,
Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
1
This Action arises from Plaintiff Arcona, Inc.’s First Amended Complaint
2
(ECF No. 34) against Defendants Farmacy Beauty, LLC, David C. Chung, and
3
Mark Veeder (collectively, “Defendants”) for: 1) Trademark Counterfeiting of
4
Arcona’s U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,706,079 (“Arcona’s ‘079 Trademark
5
Registration”); 2) Infringement of Arcona’s ‘079 Trademark Registration; 3)
6
Violation of Federal Unfair Competition; 4) Unfair Competition under California
7
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; and 5) California Common
8
Law Unfair Competition. Defendants have asserted counterclaims seeking a
9
declaration of non-infringement and cancellation of Arcona’s ‘079 Trademark
10
Registration.
11
On March 19, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on
12
Plaintiff’s claim for counterfeiting having found, inter alia, that “no reasonable jury
13
could find that Defendants’ EYE DEW product is a counterfeit of Plaintiff’s EYE
14
DEW products.” (ECF No. 129.)
15
On April 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Federal
16
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to dismiss its remaining claims with prejudice and
17
Defendants’ counterclaims without prejudice. (ECF No. 136.)
18
19
20
Accordingly,
IT
IS
HEREBY
ORDERED,
ADJUDGED,
AND
DECREED that:
1.
Pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial
21
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 129), and Order on Plaintiff’s Request
22
(ECF No. 136), judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against
23
Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Trademark
24
Counterfeiting of Arcona’s ‘079 Trademark Registration pursuant to
25
the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984;
26
27
2.
Plaintiff’s Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth causes of action for
trademark infringement of Arcona’s ‘079 Trademark Registration and
28
-1-
1
unfair competition (Federal and State Law), respectively, all of which
2
are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3
3.
Pursuant to the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Request (ECF No. 136),
4
Defendants’ counterclaims for non-infringement and cancellation of
5
Arcona’s ‘079 Trademark Registration are hereby DISMISSED
6
WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
7
4.
All other dates and deadlines in this case are hereby VACATED; and
8
5.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED.
11
12
13
14
Dated: May 8, 2019
15
Hon. Otis D. Wright II
16
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?