Vietnam Reform Party v. Viet Tan - Vietnam Reform Party et al

Filing 105

JUDGMENT. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 9/30/2019. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

RADOSLOVICH | SHAPIRO, PC
Frank M. Radoslovich, SBN 161457
Email: [e-mail]
701 University Avenue, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff Vietnam Reform Party
(a/k/a/ Việt Nam Canh Tân Cách Mạng Ðảng
or Viet Tan), an unincorporated association

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VIETNAM REFORM PARTY (a/k/a/ Việt ) Case No. 4:17-CV-00291-HSG
Nam Canh Tân Cách Mạng Ðảng or Viet Tan), )
) ORDER AND JUDGMENT
an unincorporated association,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
VIET TAN - VIETNAM REFORM PARTY, a )
)
California nonprofit corporation, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)

16
17

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of a Default

18

Judgment against Defendants, Michelle Duong (“Duong”) and Viet Tan – Vietnam Reform Party,

19

a California corporation (“VT Corp”) (collectively, “Defendants”), under Rule 55(b)(2) of the

20

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 86).

21

On August 26, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for

22

Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 90). On September 4, 2019, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to

23

show cause why the remaining claims in this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

24

(Dkt. No. 91). On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel advised the Court that Plaintiff will

25

dismiss all remaining claims. (See Dkt. No. 95). On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed all

26

remaining claims against Defendant Duong. (Dkt. No. 96). On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff

27

dismissed its trademark dilution claim against all Defendants without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 103).

28

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds as follows:
1

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00291-HSG

1.

1
2

Defendant Duong in not a minor, incompetent person, nor member of the military

service of the United States;

3

2.

Defendant Duong did not appear or otherwise defend in this action.

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

As to Defendant VT Corp, the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is GRANTED for

6

its trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act and California common law, and unfair

7

competition claims under California Business & Professions Code, section 17200, et seq. and

8

California common law; it is

9

FURTHER GRANTED that Plaintiff’s Request for Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff

10

owns the trademarks “Vietnam Reform Party,” “Việt Nam Canh Tân Cách Mạng Ðảng,” “Việt

11

Tân”, and “Viet Tan,” and Defendants have infringed on Plaintiff’s rights to those Marks. The

12

Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Permanent Injunction, consistent with the language

13

below:

14

Defendant VT Corp, and all its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and

15

all those in active concert or participation with any of them, ARE PERMANENTLY

16

RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED FROM:

17

1. Using “Vietnam Reform Party,” “Việt Nam Canh Tân Cách Mạng Ðảng,”

18

“Việt Tân”, and “Viet Tan,” (collectively “the Marks”), or any confusingly

19

similar version or variation of the Marks, in any jurisdiction in the United

20

States, except to refer to Plaintiff.

21
22

2. Representing to any media, person, entity, or the public that Defendant has any
rights to the Marks.

23

a. For purposes of the injunction, the term “person” shall be defined as

24

set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1127, which includes, but is not limited to,

25

Plaintiff’s members, the media, or any other person.

26

3. Sending cease-and-desist-letters, or any other communication as defined in 18

27

U.S.C. § 2510, asserting any right to preclude others, including but not limited

28

to plaintiff, from using the Marks.

2

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00291-HSG

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

2

Upon a showing made to this Court, Plaintiff is entitled to a Judgment against said

3

Defendant for reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost incurred in prosecution of this action. Plaintiff

4

shall submit evidence of its reasonable attorneys’ fees within 14 days of the date of this Order.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

DATED: 9/30/2019

____________________________
United States District Court Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00291-HSG