Coach Inc et al v. Goody Thrift Store and 99 Cents et al, No. 2:2012cv06790 - Document 38 (C.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER RE CONSENT JUDGMENT INCLUDING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE filed by Judge Fernando M. Olguin against defendants Goody Thrift Store and 99 Cents, Rosa Rivera. Defendants and their agents, servants, emp loyees and all persons in active concert and participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from infringing upon the Coach Marks, either directly or contributorily, in any manner (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (kbr)

Download PDF

Coach Inc et al v. Goody Thrift Store and 99 Cents et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doc. 38 Brent H. Blakely (SBN 157292) bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com Michael Marchand (SBN 281080) mmarchand@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP 915 North Citrus Avenue Hollywood, California 90038 Telephone: (323) 464-7400 Facsimile: (323) 464-7410 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. JS-6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 19 COACH, INC., a Maryland Corporation; ) CASE NO. CV-12-06790-FMO (AJWx) COACH SERVICES, INC., a Maryland ) Corporation, ) [PROPOSED] ) ------------------------ ORDER RE CONSENT Plaintiffs, ) JUDGMENT INCLUDING A vs. ) PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ) VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION GOODY THRIFT STORE AND 99 ) WITH PREJUDICE CENTS, an unknown business entity; ) ROSA RIVERA, an individual, and ) DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) 20 WHEREAS Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (“Plaintiffs” or 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 “Coach”) and Defendants Goody Thrift Store & 99 Cents and Rosa Rivera 22 (“Defendants”) have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release as to the 23 claims in the above reference matter. Defendants, having agreed to consent to the 24 terms below terms, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as among 25 the parties hereto that: 26 27 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this Final Judgment and has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1338. 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONSENT JUDGMENT Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. Coach is the worldwide owner of the trademark “COACH” and various 2 composite trademarks and assorted design components (collectively “Coach Marks”). 3 Coach Marks include but are not limited to the following marks: 4 5 Mark 6 “COACH” U.S. Registration No(s). Registration Date 751, 493 06/25/1963 7 1,071,000 08/09/1977 8 2,088,706 08/19/1997 9 3,157,972 10/17/2006 10 3,413,536 04/15/2008 3,251,315 06/12/2007 3,441,671 06/03/2008 17 2,252,847 06/15/1999 18 2,534,429 01/29/2002 1,309,779 12/18/1984 2,045,676 03/18/1997 2,169,808 06/30/1998 2,592,963 07/09/2002 2,626,565 09/24/2002 2,822,318 03/16/2004 2,832,589 04/13/2004 2,822,629 03/16/2004 3,695,290 10/13/2009 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Signature “C” Logo 28 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONSENT JUDGMENT 1 3,696,470 10/13/2009 3,012,585 11/08/2005 2 3 4 Coach “Op Art” Mark 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants’ purchase and sale of products 11 which infringe upon the Coach Marks constitutes trademark counterfeiting, trademark 12 infringement, trade dress infringement, false designations of origin and false 13 descriptions, federal trademark dilution, trademark dilution under California law, and 14 unfair competition under California law. Without admitting to liability, Defendants 15 have agreed to all terms set forth herein. 16 4. Defendants and their agents, servants, employees and all persons in active 17 concert and participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment 18 are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from infringing upon the Coach 19 Marks, either directly or contributorily, in any manner, including but not limited to: 20 (a) Manufacturing, importing, purchasing, distributing, advertising, 21 offering for sale, and/or selling any products which bear designs identical, substantially 22 similar, and/or confusingly similar to the Coach Marks; 23 (b) Using the Coach Marks or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or 24 colorable imitation thereof in connection with the manufacture, importation, 25 distribution, advertisement, offer for sale and/or sale of merchandise; 26 (c) Passing off, inducing or enabling others to sell or pass off any 27 products or other items that are not Plaintiffs’ genuine merchandise as genuine Coach 28 merchandise; 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONSENT JUDGMENT (d) 1 2 Committing any other acts calculated to cause purchasers to believe that Defendants’ products are Coach’s genuine merchandise unless they are such; (e) 3 Shipping, delivering, holding for sale, distributing, returning, 4 transferring or otherwise moving, storing or disposing of in any manner items falsely 5 bearing the Coach Marks, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation 6 thereof; and (f) 7 Assisting, aiding or attempting to assist or aid any other person or 8 entity in performing any of the prohibited activities referred to in Paragraphs 4(a) to 9 4(g) above. 5. 10 11 Plaintiffs and Defendants shall bear their own costs associated with this action. 12 6. The execution of this Final Judgment shall serve to bind and obligate the 13 parties hereto. 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONSENT JUDGMENT 1 7. The jurisdiction of this Court is retained for the purpose of making any 2 further orders necessary or proper for the construction or modification of this Final 3 Judgment, the enforcement thereof and the punishment of any violations thereof. 4 Except as otherwise provided herein, this action is fully resolved with prejudice. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED 8 9 DATED: April 16 _____________, 2013 ____________________________ /s/ Honorable Fernando M. Olguin 10 United States District Court Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONSENT JUDGMENT

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.