Gianni Versace, S.p.A. et al v. Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo SRL et al

Filing 297

STIPULATED JUDGMENT Re Docket No. 296 . ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/15/2019. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2019)

1 OTTO O. LEE (SBN 173987)
[e-mail]
2 KEVIN VIAU (SBN 275556)
[e-mail]
3
LEILA N. SOCKOLOV (SBN 282946)
4 [e-mail]
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP
5 LLP
1871 The Alameda, Suite 250
6 San Jose, California 95126
Telephone: [phone]
7
Facsimile: [phone]
8
Attorneys for Defendants VERSACE 19.69
9 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO S.R.L. and
THEOFANIS PAPADAS
10
11
12

ROSEMARIE T. RING (SBN 110840)
[e-mail]
CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE
(SBN 207976)
[e-mail]
AARON D. PENNEKAMP (SBN 290550)
[e-mail]
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street
Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
ZACHARY M. BRIERS (SBN 287984)
[e-mail]
WILLIAM LARSEN (SBN 314091)
[e-mail]
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs GIANNI VERSACE,
S.R.L. and VERSACE USA, INC.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION

17
18

GIANNI VERSACE, S.P.A. and VERSACE
19 USA, Inc.
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Case No. 4:16-cv-03617-HSG (LB)
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT AND [PROPOSED]
JUDGMENT

vs.
Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO
SPORTIVO SRL; THEOFANIS PAPADAS;
VALERO ENTERPRISES, INC; SUSAN
VALERO; V1969 BH LLC; BRILLIANCE
NEW YORK LLC; V1969 VERSACE SMO
LLC; V1969 VERSACE HG LLC; AND
V1969 USA LLC,
Defendants.

27
28
Case No. 4:16-cv-03617-HSG (LB)

1

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2016, Plaintiffs Gianni Versace S.R.L.1 and Versace USA, Inc.

2

3 (collectively, “Versace”) filed this action against, inter alia, Defendants Theofanis Papadas and
4 Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L. (collectively, “VAS”) asserting claims for, inter
5 alia, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and unfair
6 competition;
7

WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting Versace summary

8 judgment on its claims against VAS for trademark infringement, false designation of origin,
9 trademark dilution, and unfair competition, (ECF No. 261, “Summary Judgment Order”);
10

WHEREAS, the Summary Judgment Order also found that a permanent injunction was

11 warranted and, between October 2018 and November 2018, the Parties submitted briefing to the
12 Court regarding the terms of the permanent injunction, with each side proposing a draft of the
13 permanent injunction for the Court to consider;
14

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2019, the Court entered Versace’s proposed permanent

15 injunction against VAS (ECF No. 275, “Permanent Injunction”);
16

WHEREAS, a trial is currently scheduled to commence on May 13, 2019, for the Court to

17 determine the amount of money VAS owe to Versace in the form of infringer’s profits;
18

WHEREAS, on February 1, 2019, VAS filed a notice of appeal of the Summary Judgment

19 Order and the Permanent Injunction to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit,
20 which is captioned Gianni Versace, S.p.A., et al. v. Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L.,
21 et al., Case No. 19-15188 (“Appeal”);
22

WHEREAS, in order to avoid the risk, cost, and expense of the upcoming trial on

23 monetary relief, VAS agreed to dismiss the Appeal and be bound by the Summary Judgment
24 Order and Permanent Injunction, Versace agreed to release its claims for monetary recovery
25 against VAS set for trial on May 13, 2019, and the Parties agreed to stipulate to entry of the
26 attached [Proposed] Stipulated Judgment;
27

1

Gianni Versace, S.P.A. recently changed its name to “Gianni Versace S.R.L.”

28
-2[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case No. 4:16-cv-03617-HSG (LB)

1

WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into a binding term sheet memorializing, inter alia,

2 their agreement to enter judgment as set forth herein (“Agreement”).
3

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate as follows:

4

1.

The Court has jurisdiction to enter judgment in this action.

5

2.

The Court already entered the Permanent Injunction, dated January 2, 2019, that

6 remains in effect and is unchanged.
7

3.

The Parties consent to the Court having continuing jurisdiction for purposes of

8 enforcing the Parties’ Agreement, the Permanent Injunction and the Judgment, and the Parties
9 irrevocably and fully waive and relinquish any argument that venue or jurisdiction by this Court is
10 improper or inconvenient.
11

4.

The Parties request that the Court enter the [Proposed] Judgment attached hereto.

12

5.

VAS irrevocably and fully waive notice of entry of the Judgment, and notice and

13 service of the entered Judgment, and understand and agree that violation of either the Judgment or
14 the Permanent Injunction will expose them to all penalties provided by law, including contempt of
15 Court.
16

6.

VAS irrevocably and fully waive any and all right to appeal the Summary

17 Judgment Order, the Permanent Injunction, and the Judgment.
18

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19
20 DATED: April 12, 2019

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

21

By:

/s/ Zachary M. Briers
ZACHARY M. BRIERS
Attorneys for Gianni Versace, S.R.L. and
Versace USA, Inc.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED: April 12, 2019

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP
By:

/s/ Otto O. Lee
Otto Lee
Attorneys for Defendants Theofanis Papadas and
Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L.
-3-

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case No. 4:16-cv-03617-HSG (LB)

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING

1
2
3
4

Pursuant to N.D. Cal. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from counsel for GIANNI VERSACE, S.r.l. and VERSACE USA,
INC.

5
6 Dated: April 12, 2019
7
8
9
10
11

By:

/s/ Otto O. Lee
Otto O. Lee, Esq.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
1871 The Alameda, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95126
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant VERSACE 19.69
ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO S.R.L., and
THEOFANIS PAPADAS

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case No. 4:16-cv-03617-HSG (LB)

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1
2

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2016, Plaintiffs Gianni Versace S.R.L. and Versace USA, Inc.

3 (collectively, “Versace”) filed suit against, inter alia, Defendants Theofanis Papadas and Versace
4 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L. (collectively, “VAS”), asserting claims for, inter alia,
5 trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and unfair competition;
6

WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting Versace summary

7 judgment on its claims against VAS for trademark infringement, false designation of origin,
8 trademark dilution, and unfair competition, (ECF No. 261, “Summary Judgment Order”).
9

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2019, the Court entered a Permanent Injunction against VAS

10 (ECF No. 275, “Permanent Injunction”);
11

WHEREAS, on February 1, 2019, VAS filed a notice of appeal of the Summary Judgment

12 Order and the Permanent Injunction to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit,
13 which is captioned Gianni Versace, S.p.A., et al. v. Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo S.R.L.,
14 et al., Case No. 19-15188 (“Appeal”);
15

WHEREAS, in order to avoid the risk, cost, and expense of the upcoming trial on

16 monetary relief, VAS agreed to dismiss the Appeal and be bound by the Summary Judgment
17 Order and Permanent Injunction, Versace agreed to release its claims for monetary recovery
18 against VAS set for trial on May 13, 2019, and the Parties agreed to stipulate to entry of the this
19 Stipulated Judgment;
20

WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into a binding term sheet memorializing, inter alia,

21 their agreement to enter judgment as set forth herein (“Agreement”).
22

NOW THEREFORE, Pursuant to the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment filed concurrently

23 herewith, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
24 that:
25

1.

Judgment is entered in favor of Versace, and against VAS, for the reasons stated in

26 the Summary Judgment Order, with neither Party obtaining any damages or monetary award.
27

2.

VAS shall remain subject to the Permanent Injunction, which remains effective and

28 unchanged.
Case No. 4:16-cv-03617-HSG (LB)
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

3.

The Parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection

2 with this action.
3

4.

This Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Parties and the above-

4 entitled action for purposes of:
5

a)

Enforcing this Stipulated Judgment;

6

b)

Enforcing the Permanent Injunction;

7

c)

Enforcing the Parties’ Agreement;

8

d)

Issuing any other judgment or order with respect to any other relief

9 requested by the Parties; and
10

e)

Modifying this Stipulated Judgment and Permanent Injunction as

11 appropriate.
12
13

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

14
DATED: ___
15

April 15, 2019

By:
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Case No. 4:16-cv-03617-HSG (LB)