Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp. et al
Filing
170
PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/10/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
JTaylor@mofo.com
ALEXEI KLESTOFF (CA SBN 224016)
AKlestoff@mofo.com
WHITNEY E. MCCOLLUM (CA SBN 253039)
WMcCollum@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC.
ROBERT HARKINS (State Bar No.179525)
robert.harkins@sedgwicklaw.com
JIA-MING SHANG (State Bar No. 233326)
jiaming.shang@sedgwicklaw.com
SEDGWICK LLP
333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
Telephone: 415.781.7900
Facsimile:
415.781.2635
Attorneys for Defendants
KOZUMI USA CORP. and SHAO WEI HSU
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
OAKLAND DIVISION
13
14
UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
15
Plaintiff,
Case No.
12-CV-2582-CW
[PROPOSED] PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
16
v.
Courtroom:
Judge:
17
18
19
20
KOZUMI USA CORP., a Florida corporation;
SHAO WEI HSU; DANIEL HSU (AKA HSU
SHAO HSIAN); DOES ONE THROUGH ONE
HUNDRED,
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2582-CW
sf-3310314
2, 4th Floor
Hon. Claudia Wilken
Complaint filed on May 18, 2012
1
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court hereby permanently enjoins Defendants
2
Kozumi USA Corp., Shao Wei Hsu (aka William Hsu, William Hsu Wu, Guillermo Hsu), and
3
Daniel Hsu (aka Hsu Shao Hsian) and their agents, officers, directors, servants, employees,
4
owners, representatives, affiliates, and all entities controlled by any of the above persons, and all
5
other persons, firms or corporations in active concert or participation with them from:
6
(1) using or displaying any trademarks, service marks, trade names, trade dress, logos,
7
corporate names and other source identifiers, internet domain names, and uniform resource
8
locaters (“Trademarks”) asserted by Ubiquiti in the Second Amended Complaint; Trademarks
9
owned by Ubiquiti worldwide, including, but not limited to, the Trademarks listed on Exhibit 1
10
hereto; or Trademarks that incorporate, are derived from, or are otherwise confusingly similar to
11
any such Trademarks (collectively, “Ubiquiti Trademarks”);
12
13
(2) manufacturing, selling or providing any goods or services that use or display any
Ubiquiti Trademarks without Ubiquiti’s prior written authorization;
14
(3) aiding or abetting others in manufacturing, selling or providing any goods or services
15
that use or display any Ubiquiti Trademarks without Ubiquiti’s prior written authorization;
16
(4) otherwise infringing any of Ubiquiti’s rights in any Ubiquiti Trademarks;
17
(5) registering or attempting to register, or otherwise acquiring or attempting to acquire,
18
any rights with respect to any Ubiquiti Trademarks;
19
(6) using, reproducing or distributing any software that Ubiquiti alleged Defendants to
20
have used and distributed without authorization as forth in the Second Amended Complaint
21
or any other software that incorporates or is derived from all or any portion of such software
22
(“Ubiquiti Software”);
23
(7) manufacturing, selling or providing any goods or services that use or incorporate any
24
Ubiquiti Software without Ubiquiti’s prior written authorization; or
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
[PROPOSED] PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2582-CW
sf-3310314
1
1
2
3
(8) otherwise infringing Ubiquiti’s copyrights or other intellectual property rights in any
Ubiquiti Software.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
10/10/2013
Dated: ________________
6
___________________________
Honorable Claudia Wilken
Judge of the United States District Court
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 12-CV-2582-CW
sf-3310314
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?