FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network

Filing 145

[Proposed] Stipulated Final Judgment. (Evans, Eric) (Filed on 5/15/2008) Modified on 5/16/2008 (cp, COURT STAFF).

FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network

Doc. 145

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Ian N. Feinberg (SBN 88324) [e-mail] Eric B. Evans (SBN 232476) [e-mail] MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff FREECYCLESUNNYVALE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

FREECYCLESUNNYVALE, a California unincorporated association, Plaintiff, v. THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, an Arizona corporation, Defendant. THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, INC., an Arizona Corporation, Counterclaimant, v. FREECYCLESUNNYVALE, a California unincorporated association, Counterdefendant.

CASE NO. C06-00324 CW

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT CASE NO. C06-00324 CW

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// ///

Plaintiff FreecycleSunnyvale ("Sunnyvale") and Defendant The Freecycle Network, Inc., stipulate and agree that judgment be entered as follows: (1) Final judgment is entered in Sunnyvale's favor on: a. Sunnyvale's First Claim for Relief for Declaratory Judgment of NonInfringement of Trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; b. The Freecycle Network's Counterclaim for Trademark Infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); c. The Freecycle Network's Counterclaim for Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) for the reasons set forth in the Order Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying It in Part and Granting Defendant's Motion to Strike ("Order"). Dkt. no. 141. (2) Sunnyvale's Second Claim for Relief for Tortious Interference with Business Relations is dismissed with prejudice. (3) The Freecycle Network's Counterclaim for Unfair Competition under the California Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500, is dismissed with prejudice (4) Each side shall bear its costs and fees of suit and neither side shall be considered a prevailing party for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1).

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT CASE NO. C06-00324 CW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The purpose of this judgment is to allow The Freecycle Network to appeal this judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For the avoidance of doubt, neither side shall seek to appeal from the stipulated dismissal of claims described in (2) & (3) above. Dated: May 15, 2008 MAYER BROWN LLP IAN N. FEINBERG ERIC B. EVANS BY: / s/ Ian N. Feinberg Ian N. Feinberg Attorneys for Plaintiff FREECYCLESUNNYVALE Dated: May 15, 2008 KING & SPALDING LLP LISA KOBIALKA By: /s/ Lisa Kobialka Lisa Kobialka

Attorneys for Defendant THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, INC. Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), the filer hereby attests that the signatories' concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. For the reasons set forth in this Court's Order of March 13, 2008, Docket no. 141, and upon stipulation of the parties, IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED. Dated: Hon. Claudia Wilken U.S. District Judge

2
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT CASE NO. C06-00324 CW