QS Wholesale Inc et al v. Rox Volleyball Inc et al
Filing
330
JUDGMENT by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. Judgment is entered in Plaintiffs' favor and against Defendants for $204,151. 2. After receiving actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, Defendants, and their affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents, who are in active concert with Defendants, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from: (see attached judgment for information and further details.) (mt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
QS WHOLESALE, INC., a California
Corporation; QUICKSILVER, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
vs.
17
ROX VOLLEYBALL, INC., a Florida
Corporation; 1ST PLACE TEAM SALES,
INC., a Florida Corporation,
18
Defendants.
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
) Case No. SACV13-00512-AG (JPRx)
)
) JUDGMENT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Trial in this action began on January 13, 2015, in Courtroom 10D of the abovementioned Court, before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford.
On January 23, 2015, the Court instructed the Jury on the claims by Plaintiffs
Quicksilver, Inc. and QS Wholesale, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”).
25
26
27
28
Judgment
Case No. SACV13-00512-AJG (JPRx)
1
On January 23, 2015, the jury returned a special verdict with the following findings:
2
3
1.
Was there federal trademark infringement by the defendants, Rox Volleyball
4
and 1st Place Team Sales, on one of the claims brought by plaintiffs?
YES _X_
5
NO ___
6
****
7
8
9
2.
Did defendants intentionally infringe?
YES _X_
10
NO ___
11
12
3.
Did defendants engage in federal trademark dilution?
YES _X_
13
NO ___
14
****
15
16
17
4.
Did defendants willfully cause a likelihood of dilution of the ROXY®
18
trademark?
YES _X_
19
NO ___
20
****
21
22
23
5.
24
a result of wrongful conduct of defendants?
25
What amount of actual damages, if any, do you find that plaintiffs suffered as
$42,376
26
27
28
Judgment
Case No. SACV13-00512-AJG (JPRx)
1
6.
What amount of profits, if any, earned by defendants are attributable to
2
wrongful conduct that are not taken into account by your answer to Question 5?
$161,775
3
4
5
7.
Did plaintiffs know, or should plaintiffs have known, of Rox Volleyball’s
6
allegedly infringing use by March 29, 2009?
YES ___
7
NO _X_
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
9
10
that:
11
12
1. Judgment is entered in Plaintiffs’ favor and against Defendants for $204,151.
13
14
2. After receiving actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise,
15
Defendants, and their affiliates, directors, officers, employees and agents, who are
16
in active concert with Defendants, are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from:
17
18
19
a. Selling, distributing for sale, producing, manufacturing, licensing, or using
20
apparel bearing “rox,” or marketing such apparel with “rox,” except where
21
both Defendants’ design logo and the word “volleyball” are used in at least
22
equal size font to “rox.” For example:
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judgment
Case No. SACV13-00512-AJG (JPRx)
1
b. But Defendants are permitted to use
2
3
4
without the word “volleyball” in one limited instance. Defendants can use
5
their design logo coupled with the word “rox” on team volleyball apparel
6
where (A) governing rules limit the size of any logo or brand on such apparel
7
and (B) including “volleyball” in equal size font to “rox” is impossible.
8
9
c. Defendants are permitted, for a period of six months after this Order is issued,
10
to sell and distribute their existing inventory of infringing products. During the
11
one year period, Defendants may only sell and distribute the infringing
12
products through their current channels of distribution.
13
14
d. Within 60 days of the issuance of this Order, Defendants are further
15
ORDERED to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiffs a writing under oath
16
setting forth with specifics how they are complying with the injunction. At the
17
end of the six month phase out period, Defendants must destroy any
18
remaining infringing products and file with the Court a writing under oath (1)
19
specifying the product styles and quantities of each product style destroyed
20
and (2) declaring that no infringing products remain in Defendants’ inventory.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED
24
25
Dated: July 23, 2015
26
27
28
Judgment
Case No. SACV13-00512-AJG (JPRx)
_____________________________
Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
United States District Judge
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?