Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 161

Proposed Jury Instructions by Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc., Steven Chen DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Jury Instruction #1, # 2 Supplemental Jury Instruction #2, # 3 Supplemental Jury Instruction #3, # 4 Supplemental Jury Instruction #4, # 5 Supplemental Jury Instruction #5, # 6 Supplemental Jury Instruction #6, # 7 Supplemental Jury Instruction #7, # 8 Supplemental Jury Instruction #8, # 9 Supplemental Jury Instruction #9, # 10 Supplemental Jury Instruction #10, # 11 Supplemental Jury Instruction #11, # 12 Supplemental Jury Instruction #12, # 13 Supplemental Jury Instruction #13, # 14 Supplemental Jury Instruction #14, # 15 Supplemental Jury Instruction #15, # 16 Supplemental Jury Instruction #16, # 17 Supplemental Jury Instruction #17, # 18 Supplemental Jury Instruction #18, # 19 Supplemental Jury Instruction #20, # 20 Supplemental Jury Instruction #21, # 21 Supplemental Jury Instruction #22, # 22 Supplemental Jury Instruction #23)(Lowe, James) (Filed on 6/5/2009)

Download PDF
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al Doc. 161 Att. 11 Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document161-12 Filed06/05/09 Page1 of 3 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 GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES David A. Gauntlett (SBN 96399) James A. Lowe (SBN 214383) Brian S. Edwards (SBN 166258) Christopher Lai (SBN 249425) 18400 Von Karman, Suite 300 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 553-1010 Facsimile: (949) 553-2050 info@gauntlettlaw.com jal@gauntlettlaw.com bse@gauntlettlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc. and Steve Chen UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., ) Case No.: C 07-3952 JW (HRL) ) ) Plaintiff, ) SUPPLEMENTAL JURY ) INSTRUCTION NO. 12 vs. ) ) ) ) AKANOC SOLUTIONS, INC., MANAGED SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., STEVEN CHEN ) AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) 164185.1-10562-002-6/5/2009 SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 C 07-3952 JW Dockets.Justia.com Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document161-12 Filed06/05/09 Page2 of 3 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 164185.1-10562-002-6/5/2009 JURY INSTRUCTION No. ____ CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION A "likelihood" of confusion requires that the confusion be probable, not simply a possibility. The allegedly infringing conduct must be likely to confound an appreciable number of reasonably prudent purchasers exercising ordinary care. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 C 07-3952 JW Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document161-12 Filed06/05/09 Page3 of 3 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 Murray v. Cable Nat. Broadcasting Co., 86 F.3d 858 (9th Cir.1996) ("A likelihood of confusion exists when a consumer viewing a service mark is likely to purchase the services under a mistaken belief that the services are, or associated with, the services of another provider. [citing Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.1987)]. The confusion must "be probable, not simply a possibility.") Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1151 (9th Cir.2002) ("To constitute trademark infringement, use of a mark must be likely to confuse an appreciable number of people as to the source of the product. [citing Int'l Ass'n. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Winship Green Nursing Ctr., 103 F.3d 196, 201 (1st Cir.1996)] [T]he law has long demanded a showing that the allegedly infringing conduct carries with it a likelihood of confounding an appreciable number of reasonably prudent purchasers exercising ordinary care." [italics in original]) 164185.1-10562-002-6/5/2009 3 SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 C 07-3952 JW

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?