UL LLC v. Gangsong Group Corp. et al
Filing
99
JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS SHENZHEN KEBE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., JING HUA ZHOU, SHENZHEN LEIDISI ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., TRC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, SUM FORTUNE INTERNATIONAL GROUP, DEFANG USA, LLC, AND SUN DEFANG 98 by Judge Dale S. Fischer. See Judgment for specifics. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 2:17-cv-08166 DSF (Ex)
UL LLC,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
Gangsong Group Corp., a California
corporation; Flying Medical USA LLC, a
California company; Logistic Public
Warehouse, a California company; Thomas
Soon Chiah, an individual; Shenzhen Kebe
Technology Co. Ltd., a foreign company;
Jing Hua Zhou, an individual; Shenzhen
Leidisi Electronics Technology Co., Ltd., a
foreign company; TRC International Corp.,
a California corporation; Sum Fortune
International Group, a California
corporation; Defang USA, LLC, a California
company; Sun Defang, an individual;
ManSeeManWant LLC, an Illinois
company; James Ellenberg, an individual;
and John Does 1-10, individuals,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANTS SHENZHEN KEBE
TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., JING
HUA ZHOU, SHENZHEN LEIDISI
ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO.
LTD., TRC INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, SUM FORTUNE
INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
DEFANG USA, LLC, AND SUN
DEFANG
Defendants.
26
27
28
JUDGMENT
CHI 69800408v1
1
Having considered Plaintiff UL LLC’s (“UL”) Application for Entry of Default
2 Judgment Against Defendants Shenzhen Kebe Technology Co. Ltd., Jing Hua Zhou,
3 Shenzhen Leidisi Electronics Technology Co. Ltd., TRC International Corporation, Sum
4 Fortune International Group, Defang USA, LLC, and Sun Defang (collectively,
5 “Defendants”), and the issues having been duly heard, the Court hereby GRANTS the
6 Application. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court
7 has found that there is no just reason to delay entering judgment for Plaintiff and against
8 Defendants, who have defaulted in this action, as all other defendants in this action (a)
9 are subject to a stipulated consent decree and permanent injunction entered by the Court
10 or requested to be entered by the Court, or (b) have had the claims against them severed
11 and transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
12
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is entered in
13 favor of UL and against Defendants as follows:
14
1. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for and ordered to pay UL the
15
amount of $2,000,000.00—as statutory damages for Defendants’ willful,
16
deliberate, and unjustifiable counterfeiting of UL’s trademarks—plus
17
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $43,600.00, plus costs in the amount of
18
$400.00, for a total of $2,044,000.00.
19
2. Post-judgment interest shall accrue on the foregoing amounts pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1961.
20
21
3. Defendants are permanently enjoined, on the terms below.
22
Permanent Injunction:
23 UL owns the following federally registered marks:
24
MARK
REG. NO.
TYPE
0,782,589
Certification Mark
25
26
27
28
1
JUDGMENT
CHI 69800408v1
1
MARK
2
REG. NO.
2,391,140
Certification Mark
3
4
5
TYPE
UL
4,201,014
Service Mark
4,283,962
Certification Mark
6
7
8
9
10
Notwithstanding UL’s exclusive rights in and to the above referenced UL Certification
11
Marks and the UL Service Mark, Defendants adopted and have been using a mark that is
12
identical to or substantially indistinguishable from UL Certification Marks (the
13
“Counterfeit Mark”) to falsely suggest that their goods have been certified by UL.
14
Accordingly, Defendants, and their officers, members, managers, agents, servants,
15
employees, attorneys, confederates, and any persons acting in concert or participation with
16
them, or having knowledge of this order by personal service or otherwise, from:
17
i.
imitating, copying, or making any other infringing use of the UL
18
Service Mark and the UL Certification Marks by the defendants’
19
Counterfeit Mark, and any other mark now or hereafter confusingly
20
similar to the UL Service Mark or the UL Certification Mark;
21
ii.
manufacturing, assembling, producing, distributing, offering for
22
distribution, circulating, selling, offering for sale, advertising,
23
importing, promoting, or displaying any simulation, reproduction,
24
counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the UL Service Mark, the
25
UL Certification Marks, defendants’ Counterfeit Mark, or any mark
26
confusingly similar thereto;
27
iii.
28
using any false designation of origin or false description or statement
that can or is likely to lead the trade or public or individuals
2
JUDGMENT
CHI 69800408v1
1
erroneously to believe that any good has been provided, produced,
2
distributed, offered for distribution, circulation, sold, offered for sale
3
imported, advertised, promoted, displayed, licensed, sponsored,
4
approved, or authorized by or for UL, when such is not true in fact;
iv.
5
using the names, logos, or other variations thereof of the UL Service
6
Mark, the UL Certification Marks, or defendants’ Counterfeit Mark in
7
any of defendants’ trade or corporate names;
v.
8
engaging in any other activity constituting an infringement of the UL
Service Mark, the UL Certification Marks, or of the rights of UL in,
9
10
or right to use or to exploit the UL Service Marks and the UL
11
Certification Marks; and
vi.
12
assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or business entity in
13
engaging in or performing any of the activities referred to in
14
subparagraphs (i) through (v) above.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 30, 2019
Honorable Dale S. Fischer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JUDGMENT
CHI 69800408v1
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?