Chanel Inc v. Eclub.com Inc et al, No. 2:2012cv01275 - Document 44 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: STIPULATED CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Judge Gary A. Feess in favor of Chanel Inc against Eclub.com Inc, Joseph S Cheon 43 . ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (rfi)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Chanel Inc v. Eclub.com Inc et al Doc. 44 JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 James H. Berry, Jr. (State Bar No. 075834) Kevin R. Lussier (State Bar No. 143821) BERRY & LUSSIER A Professional Corporation 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-8989 Facsimile: (310) 788-0080 E-Mail: jberry@bandlpc.com E-Mail: klussier@bandlpc.com Attorneys for Plaintiff CHANEL, INC. 7 8 9 10 11 BERRY & LUSSIER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12 Stephen H. Marcus (State Bar No. 048294) GITTLER & BRADFORD 10537 Santa Monica Boulevard, Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 474-4007 Facsimile: (310) 474-4407 Attorneys for Defendants ECLUB.COM, INC. and JOSEPH CHEON 13 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 CHANEL, INC., a New York corporation, 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. ECLUB.COM, INC., et al. 20 21 22 23 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 12-01275 GAF (RZx) STIPULATED CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 24 25 Plaintiff, Chanel, Inc. (“Chanel”) and Defendants, Eclub.com, Inc., a 26 California Corporation, and Joseph S. Cheon, an individual, individually and 27 jointly, d/b/a Eclub.com d/b/a Eclub d/b/a Eclub Company d/b/a Body Jewelry 28 Factory d/b/a Bodyjewelryfactory.com d/b/a Barbellplus.com d/b/a CV12-01275 GAF (RZX) -1STIPULATED CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Dockets.Justia.com 1 Hecoolshecool.com d/b/a Shecoolhecool.com (collectively the “Defendants”) 2 stipulate and consent to the following: 3 WHEREAS, the Defendants adopted and began using trademark in the 4 United States which infringe and dilute the distinctive quality of Chanel’s various 5 registered trademark: 6 Chanel’s Complaint; 7 (the “Chanel Mark”) as identified in Paragraph 7 of WHEREAS, the Defendants’ use of names and marks which are 8 identical to, or substantially indistinguishable from the Chanel Mark is likely to 9 cause confusion as to source or origin of the Defendants’ products, and will further 10 BERRY & LUSSIER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 11 12 13 dilute the distinctive quality of the Chanel Mark; WHEREAS, without the admission of any liability, the parties desire to settle and have amicably resolved their dispute to each of their satisfaction; and WHEREAS, based upon Chanel’s good faith prior use of the Chanel Marks, 14 Chanel has superior and exclusive rights in and to the Chanel Mark in the United 15 States and any confusingly similar names or marks. 16 IT IS STIPULATED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 17 1. The Defendants and their respective officers, agents, servants, 18 employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with 19 them are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from intentionally and/or 20 knowingly: 21 A. manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, importing, 22 advertising, or promoting, distributing, selling or offering to sell 23 counterfeit and infringing goods bearing the Chanel Mark; 24 B. unauthorized goods; 25 26 27 using the Chanel Mark in connection with the sale of any C. using any logo, and/or layout which may be calculated to falsely advertise the services or products of the Defendants as being 28 CV12-01275 GAF (RZX -2STIPULATED CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 1 sponsored by, authorized by, endorsed by, or in any way 2 associated with the Plaintiff; 3 D. Plaintiff, through sponsorship or association, 4 5 falsely representing the Defendants as being connected with the E. engaging in any act which is likely to falsely cause members of 6 the trade and/or of the purchasing public to believe any goods or 7 services of the Defendants, are in any way endorsed by, 8 approved by, and/or associated with the Plaintiff; 9 F. using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation BERRY & LUSSIER of the Chanel Mark in connection with the publicity, promotion, 11 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 10 sale, or advertising of any goods sold by the Defendants, 12 including, without limitation, costume jewelry, including 13 earrings; 14 G. affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the sale 15 of any goods, a false description or representation, including 16 words or other symbols tending to falsely describe or 17 represent the Defendants’ goods as being those of the Plaintiff, 18 or in any way endorsed by the Plaintiff; 19 H. competing with the Plaintiff. 20 21 offering such goods in commerce; and from otherwise unfairly I. secreting, destroying, altering, removing, or otherwise dealing 22 with the unauthorized products or any books or records which 23 contain any information relating to the importing, 24 manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling, 25 marketing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, renting or 26 displaying of all unauthorized products which infringe the 27 Chanel Mark; and 28 CV12-01275 GAF (RZX -3STIPULATED CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION J. 1 effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or 2 associations or utilizing any other device for the purpose of 3 circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth in 4 subparagraphs (A) through (I). 5 2. Plaintiff shall have the right to seek sanctions for contempt, 6 compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and such other 7 relief deemed proper in the event of a violation or failure by the Defendants to 8 comply with any of the provisions hereof. The prevailing party in any such 9 proceeding shall be entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs. 10 3. The causes of action between Chanel and the Defendants are hereby BERRY & LUSSIER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 11 dismissed with prejudice, subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement between 12 the parties. This Consent Final Judgment shall be conclusive for purposes of 13 collateral estoppel regarding all issues that have been or could have been brought 14 on the same operative facts. 15 4. The parties’ respective attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection 16 with this action shall be borne as per the agreement of the individual parties in their 17 Settlement Agreement. 18 5. This Court will retain continuing jurisdiction over this cause to enforce 19 the terms of this Consent Final Judgment and the Settlement Agreement between 20 the parties. 21 6. All counterfeit Chanel branded products seized on February 17, 2012 22 and/or any Chanel branded products currently in the possession, custody and/or 23 control of the Defendants required to be surrendered to Chanel under the terms of 24 the parties’ settlement, shall be destroyed under the direction of Chanel. 25 7. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation that Seventy Thousand Dollars 26 ($70,000.00) of the funds restrained pursuant to the Court’s Order, dated February 27 16, 2012 (e-docket 14) became the legal and equitable property of Chanel on that 28 CV12-01275 GAF (RZX -4STIPULATED CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 1 date, Paypal, Inc. (“Paypal”) is ordered to immediately (1) release Seventy 2 Thousand Dollars ($70,000.00) of the funds restrained pursuant to the Court’s 3 Order, dated February 16, 2012 (e-docket 14) to Plaintiff, Chanel, Inc.; and (2) 4 upon transfer of the funds to Chanel as required herein, release any remaining funds 5 subject to the Court’s Order, dated February 16, 2012 (e-docket 14), back to the 6 possession, custody and control of the Defendants in accordance with Paypal’s 7 operating procedures and contract for services with any of the Defendants. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 BERRY & LUSSIER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 11 Dated: April 18, 2013 12 13 14 ________________________________ Hon. Gary Allen Feess United States DistrictJudge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CV12-01275 GAF (RZX -5STIPULATED CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
