IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 28, 2009
GURU DENIM, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
L.A. IDOL FASHION, INC., A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN STATUS, RECCO JEANS, A BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN STATUS, ANDY HSI-AN WEI, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. George H. WU United States District Judge
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
The Court, having read and considered the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment that has been executed on behalf of Plaintiff Guru Denim, Inc. ("Plaintiff") on the one hand, and Defendants L.A. Idol Fashion, Inc. and Andy Hsi-An Wei (collectively, "Defendant"), on the other, and good cause appearing therefore, hereby:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. Plaintiff is entitled to and shall recover from Defendant on Plaintiff's Complaint for Defendant's infringement the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
2. Plaintiff is entitled to and shall collectively recover from Defendant interest accruing upon the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum of the unpaid judgment amount from the date of entry of judgment until paid in full.
3. Plaintiff is further entitled to, and shall collectively recover from the Defendant, its actual attorneys' fees and, costs and expenses incurred after the date hereof relative to or in connection with enforcing, executing on, collecting on or confirming this Judgment according to proof. The Court hereby retains jurisdiction to award such attorneys' fees, costs and expenses upon motion or application by Plaintiff or its counsel.
4. As a matter of law, Defendant "willfully and maliciously" injured Plaintiff, within the meaning of section 523(a)(6) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Further, as a matter of law, a judgment debt for Defendant's acts identified in paragraphs 2(a)-(b) is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to section 523(a)(6) of the United States Bankruptcy Code as evidenced by the following, stipulated Conclusions of Law:
(a) Defendant intentionally, willfully, and maliciously converted Plaintiff's intellectual property to its own use, including but not limited the following intellectual property:
Intellectual Property: Registration No.: Registration Date:
True Religion Stitching Pattern (Trademark) 3,147,244 3,219,110
September 16, 2006 March 13, 2007
"True Religion Brand Jeans World Tour Fashion for the Senses" (Trademark)
2,917,187 January 11, 2005
"True Religion Brand Jeans" (Trademark)
2,761,793 3,120,797 3,120,798 3,282,490
September 9, 2003 July 25, 2006 July 25, 2006 August 21, 2007
"True Religion" (Trademark)
October 24, 2006 October 24, 2006
True Religion Brand Jeans Designs (Copyright)
VA 1-301-845 VA 1-301-845
February 6, 2003 February 6, 2003
True Religion Stitch Pattern
D547530 July 31, 2007
(b) Defendant was well aware of its legal obligation under federal laws to obtain a license before engaging in importing, displaying, promoting, marketing, distributing, offering for sale and/or selling products infringing Plaintiff's intellectual properties and otherwise violating Plaintiff's interests;
(c) Defendant knowingly, willfully, and intentionally engaged in importing, displaying, promoting, marketing, distributing, offering for sale and/or selling products infringing Plaintiff's intellectual properties, knowing specifically that it did not have any license(s) from Plaintiff required therefore and that it was violating Plaintiff's intellectual property rights by engaging in such conduct;
(d) Defendant acted with the specific and deliberate intent to willfully and maliciously injure Plaintiff by its unauthorized sale of products infringing Plaintiff's intellectual properties;
(e) Defendant acted with the specific and deliberate intent to gain financially through the illegal infringement of Plaintiff's intellectual properties; and
(f) Defendant willfully and intentionally violated federal intellectual property laws. See, e.g., Matter of Elms, 112 B.R. 148 (Bkrtcy. E.D. La. 1990); Matter of Remick, 96 B.R. 935 (W.D. Mo. 1987); In re Gabaldon, 55 B.R. 431 (Bkrtcy. D.N.M. 1985); In re Massier, 51 B.R. 229 (D.C. Colo. 1985).
THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ENTER THIS JUDGMENT FORTHWITH.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2009.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.