Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Century Tile, Inc. v. Hirsch Glass Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 7, 2010

CENTURY TILE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION D/B/A STONE PEWTER ACCENTS AND MALAGA COVE TILE, AND CARL STEADLY, AN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS,
v.
HIRSCH GLASS COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION D/B/A BEDROSIAN TILE & MARBLE, AND ALYSEDWARDS TILE & STONE, AN UNKNOWN CALIFORNIA ENTITY DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. George H. Wu

Dept.: 10

FINAL JUDGMENT

Complaint Filed: April 29, 2008 Trial Date: NONE

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

FINAL JUDGMENT

On April 14, 2009, this Court entered partial judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' trade dress claims under the Lanham Act (Second Cause of Action for Trade Dress Infringement) and unfair competition claims under California statutory (Third Cause of Action for Unfair Trade Practices Under California Law) and common law (Fourth Cause of Action for Unfair Competition Under California Common Law).

As to the remaining cause of action for copyright infringement (First Cause of Action for Copyright Infringement Under 17 U.S.C. Section 101), pursuant to Court order, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Copyright Scope and Infringement and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication came on regularly for hearing before this Court on August 24, 2009 and September 3, 2009.

David Dillard and Patrick Orme appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Enoch H. Liang and Daniel Taylor appeared on behalf of Defendants. Evidence both oral and documentary, including physical tile samples from both parties, was introduced and the matter was presented and submitted. Good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

With respect to the 17 copyrights listed in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, and reproduced in the below Table, the Court finds that, to the extent that Plaintiffs have valid copyrights, those copyrights are entitled to only "thin" protection. Furthermore, under the extrinsic test for infringement, the Court finds that there is no substantial similarity (much less virtual identity) insofar as the protectable items are concerned as between Plaintiffs' copyrighted products and Defendants' glass tiles.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Copyright Scope and Infringement as to the infringement portion is denied, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is hereby granted as to Plaintiffs' infringement claims.

Plaintiffs'

Copyright Reg. No.

Copyright Name

VA 1-311-300 Morioka Natural VA 1-311-301 Morioka Silk VA 1-311-314 Kyoto Natural VA 1-311-302 Kyoto Silk VA 1-311-306 Chuzenji Natural VA 1-311-303 Chuzenji Silk VA 1-311-307 Zushi Natural VA 1-311-311 Zushi Silk VA 1-311-309 Ohara Natural VA 1-311-313 Ohara Silk VA 1-311-310 Sendai Natural VA 1-311-312 Sendai Silk VA 1-305-384 Silvermoon Pearl VA 1-305-383 Silvermoon Silk VA 1-305-386 Butterscotch Pearl VA 1-305-388 Butterscotch Silk VA 1-305-387 Teal Silk

The Clerk is ordered to enter final judgment in favor of Defendants.

Hon. George H. Wu UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20100607

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.