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. 16 Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document161-17 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. 17 vs. ) ) ) ) AKANOC SOLUTIONS, INC., MANAGED SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., STEVEN CHEN ) AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) 165100.1-10562-002-6/5/2009 SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17 C 07-3952 JW Dockets.Justia.com Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document161-17 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 165100.1-10562-002-6/5/2009 JURY INSTRUCTION No. ____ CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT --CONTINUE TO SUPPLY INFRINGING PRODUCT TO INRINGER You may not find a defendant liable for continuing to supply its product or service to an infringing website operator whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement if, after becoming aware of infringing activities, appropriate steps are taken to cut off the supply of its product or service to the alleged infringer. 2 SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17 C 07-3952 JW Case5:07-cv-03952-JW Document161-17 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 Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. Ebay, Inc. 576 F.Supp.2d 463 (S.D.N.Y 2008) ("The Inwood test requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant continued to supply its product to an infringer once it had knowledge of the infringement. Courts have routinely declined to impose liability where a defendant, once it possesses sufficient knowledge, takes "appropriate steps" to cut off the supply of its product or service to the infringer.") AT & T v. Winback & Conserve Program, 42 F.3d 1421, 1433 n. 14 (3d Cir.1994) (contributory liability could not be imposed where the defendant "took appropriate steps" "in the instances where [plaintiff] brought objectionable acts ... to the attention of [defendant]") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 317 F.3d 1121, 1129-30 (10th Cir. 2003) ("In Inwood, . . . [t]o maintain a successful action for contributory infringement, the plaintiff had to show that the generic pharmaceutical maker "in fact, continued to supply [the pills] to pharmacists whom the [generic manufacturer] knew were mislabeling generic drugs." Id. at 855, 102 S.Ct. 2182. In Inwood, the Court agreed with the findings of the district court and concluded that the plaintiff could not make this showing.. . . .Similarly here, P & G cannot establish that Amway "continued to supply" any products to the Distributor upon discovery of the Satanic message. In fact, as the district court noted, Amway did not instruct the Distributor Defendants to spread the rumor, and, in fact, "upon learning of the subject message, Amway suggested that [one of the Distributor Defendants] issue a retraction," which he did.") 165100.1-10562-002-6/5/2009 3 SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17 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?