FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network, No. 4:2006cv00324 - Document 146 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

Court Description: ORDER re 145 granting Stipulated Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/20/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2008)
Download PDF
FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doc. 146 Ian N. Feinberg (SBN 88324) ifeinberg@mayerbrown.com Eric B. Evans (SBN 232476) eevans@mayerbrown.com MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2000 Facsimile: (650) 331-2060 Attorneys for Plaintiff FREECYCLESUNNYVALE 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 12 13 FREECYCLESUNNYVALE, a California unincorporated association, Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 v. 20 21 22 23 24 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, an Arizona corporation, Defendant. 18 19 CASE NO. C06-00324 CW THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, INC., an Arizona Corporation, Counterclaimant, v. FREECYCLESUNNYVALE, a California unincorporated association, Counterdefendant. 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT CASE NO. C06-00324 CW Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Plaintiff FreecycleSunnyvale (“Sunnyvale”) and Defendant The Freecycle Network, Inc., stipulate and agree that judgment be entered as follows: 3 (1) 4 Final judgment is entered in Sunnyvale’s favor on: a. Sunnyvale’s First Claim for Relief for Declaratory Judgment of Non- 5 Infringement of Trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; 6 b. The Freecycle Network’s Counterclaim for Trademark Infringement under the 7 Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); 8 c. The Freecycle Network’s Counterclaim for Unfair Competition under the 9 Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) 10 for the reasons set forth in the Order Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion for 11 Summary Judgment and Denying It in Part and Granting Defendant’s Motion to 12 Strike (“Order”). Dkt. no. 141. 13 (2) 14 Sunnyvale’s Second Claim for Relief for Tortious Interference with Business Relations is dismissed with prejudice. 15 (3) The Freecycle Network’s Counterclaim for Unfair Competition under the 16 California Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17 17500, is dismissed with prejudice 18 (4) 19 Each side shall bear its costs and fees of suit and neither side shall be considered a prevailing party for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT CASE NO. C06-00324 CW 1 The purpose of this judgment is to allow The Freecycle Network to appeal this judgment 2 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For the avoidance of doubt, neither side shall 3 seek to appeal from the stipulated dismissal of claims described in (2) & (3) above. 4 Dated: May 15, 2008 5 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff FREECYCLESUNNYVALE 8 9 MAYER BROWN LLP IAN N. FEINBERG ERIC B. EVANS BY: /s/ Ian N. Feinberg Ian N. Feinberg Dated: May 15, 2008 KING & SPALDING LLP LISA KOBIALKA 10 By: 11 12 /s/ Lisa Kobialka Lisa Kobialka Attorneys for Defendant THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, INC. 13 14 Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), the filer hereby attests that the signatories’ concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 For the reasons set forth in this Court’s Order of March 13, 2008, Docket no. 141, and upon stipulation of the parties, IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED. Dated: 5/20/08 Hon. Claudia Wilken U.S. District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT CASE NO. C06-00324 CW