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