ROLEX WATCH U.S.A., INC. v. CHAN Case No. CV 12-01803 RGK (MANx).
ROLEX WATCH U.S.A., INC. Plaintiff, v. TED CHAN AND STEPHEN SHAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A LUSSO TIME AND WWW.LUSSOTIME.COM; UNKNOWN WEBSITES 1-10; UNKNOWN ENTITIES 1-10; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.
United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division.
July 24, 2012.
Anthony M. Keats (Bar No. 123672), E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org., David K. Caplan (Bar No. 181174), E-Mail: email@example.com Caroline Y. Bussin (Bar No. 239343), E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org KEATS McFARLAND & WILSON LLP, Beverly Hills, California, Brian W. Brokate (admitted pro hac vice), Email: email@example.com., John Macaluso (admitted pro hac vice), Email: firstname.lastname@example.org GIBNEY, ANTHONY & FLAHERTY, LLP, New York, NY Attorneys for Plaintiff ROLEX WATCH U.S.A., INC.
STIPULATED CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the joint stipulation of Defendants Ted Chan and Stephen Shar, individually and d/b/a LussoTime and
Plaintiff Rolex commenced this action on March 2, 2012 against Defendants. In the Complaint, Rolex alleges federal trademark infringement, false designations of origin and false description and dilution in violation of 15.U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 (a) and (c), and unfair competition under the common law.
NOW THEREFORE, upon consent of the parties hereto, it is
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and jurisdiction over Defendant.
2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
3. Plaintiff Rolex is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, having an office and principal place of business at 665 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022.
4. Ted Chan is the co-owner, operator and/or controlling force behind LussoTime and
5. Stephen Shar is the co-owner, operator and/or controlling force behind LussoTime and
6. Defendants' principal place of business is 5482 Wilshire Blvd. # 267, Los Angeles, CA 90036.
7. Rolex is the owner of, including but not limited to, the following federal trademark registrations in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter referred to as "Rolex Registered Trademarks"):
8. The Rolex Registered Trademarks are arbitrary and fanciful and are entitled to the highest level of protection afforded by law.
9. Rolex and its predecessors have used the Rolex Registered Trademarks for many years on and in connection with watches, related products and in advertisements, posters and print ads. The Rolex Registered Trademarks identify high quality products originating with Rolex.
10. Based upon Rolex's extensive advertising, sales and the wide popularity of Rolex products, the Rolex Registered Trademarks are now famous and distinctive, and have been famous and distinctive since well prior to the activities of the Defendants.
11. The Rolex Registered Trademarks are valid and subsisting and in full force and effect and have become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
12. Long after Rolex's adoption and use of the Rolex Registered Trademarks on its products and after Rolex's federal registration of the Rolex Registered Trademarks, Defendants began using the Rolex Registered Trademarks on the website
13. Defendants are not now, nor have they ever been, associated, affiliated, connected with, endorsed or sanctioned by Rolex.
14. Rolex has never authorized or consented in any way to the use by Defendants of the Rolex Registered Trademarks or marks confusingly similar thereto.
15. Despite numerous cease and desist letters, Defendants continued to prominently display the Rolex Registered Trademarks without authorization from Rolex and continued to state that they will honor Rolex's warranty terms and conditions.
16. Defendants' use of the Rolex Registered Trademarks are likely to cause confusion, deception and/or mistake in the marketplace, relevant industry, and all channels of trade for Rolex's goods and services.
17. Defendant's use of the Rolex Registered Trademarks are likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the source of Defendant's goods and services, as to an affiliation or connection between Rolex and Defendant's goods and services, or as to Rolex's approval, endorsement or sponsorship of Defendant's goods and services.
18. Defendants' use of the Rolex Registered Trademarks is likely to dilute the distinctive quality of Rolex's Rolex Trademarks.
19. Defendants' use of the Rolex Registered Trademarks is likely to injure the business reputation of Rolex.
20. Defendants' prominent display of the Rolex Registered Trademarks intentionally, maliciously and willfully infringes and dilutes upon the Rolex Registered Trademarks, despite knowledge that such use is illegal.
21. This case constitutes an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
22. Rolex has suffered irreparable harm and damages as a result of Defendants' illegal acts. The injuries and damages sustained by Rolex have been directly and proximately caused by the Defendants' wrongful advertisement and promotion using the Rolex Registered Trademarks.
23. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert and participation with Defendants are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from:
24. Judgment shall be entered jointly and severally against each person or entity herein referred to collectively as "Defendants" in the amount of $2,500.00 USD for Rolex's damages as a result of Defendants' conduct.
25. In the event Defendant(s) breach any term of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction, or otherwise infringe or dilute Rolex's trademark rights, Rolex shall be entitled to injunctive relief, damages and profits and Defendant(s) shall pay Rolex attorneys' fees and costs incurred as a result of such infringement, dilution, and/or breach.
26. This Consent Judgment shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, and acquiring companies.
27. This Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over this cause to enforce the terms of this Consent Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction and for the modification and/or the punishment of any violations thereof.
28. The Permanent Injunction shall remain in full force and effect until modified by order of this Court.
- No Cases Found