Belks Media v. OnlineNic, Inc. et al

Filing 59

JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 10/21/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 OAKLAND DIVISION 5 BELKS MEDIA, a Hong Kong business Case No: C 09-00198 SBA 6 entity, JUDGMENT Plaintiff, 7 8 vs. 9 ONLINENIC, a California corporation; and BELKS STORES SERVICES, INC., a North 10 Carolina corporation, Defendants. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 In accordance with the Court’s Order Accepting Report and Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT final judgment shall be entered in favor of Cross-Complainant Belk Store Services, Inc. (“Belk”) on its claims against China Internet Ltd. (“CIL”), as follows: 1. a. 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. $13,283.00 in attorneys’ fees; and c. 20 $60,000.00 in actual damages; b. 19 22 CIL shall pay Belk the following amounts: $412.10 in costs. CIL and each of its agents, servants, employees and all those persons in concert or participation with CIL, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from directly or indirectly: (i) registering, trafficking in, or using any domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the BELK marks; (ii) falsely representing or causing confusion in any manner such that the public would tend to falsely associate CIL’s business, services, or products as being the same as, or related to, approved by, sponsored by, affiliated with, or otherwise having any relationship with Belk or its business, services, 1 and products; and (iii) assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or business entity in 2 engaging in or performing any of the said activities. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2011 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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?