The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. James S. Otero
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.
WHEREAS, on or about May 11, 2009, Lounge 22 filed this action against AFR and Scholnick alleging claims for trade dress infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(A), unfair competition by passing off in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 11125(A), unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, intentional interference with economic relations, negligent interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment based on, among other things, Lounge 22's asserted trade dress rights in the Soho Combo design;
WHEREAS, on or about July 15, 2009, AFR and Scholnick filed an answer to the complaint denying its allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses;
WHEREAS, on or about July 15, 2009, AFR filed a counterclaim against Lounge 22 for declaratory relief that Lounge 22's Soho Combo was not entitled to trade dress protection;
WHEREAS, without admitting any liability, the parties have agreed to mutually acceptable terms on which to settle this matter;
WHEREAS, as part of their settlement agreement, the parties have agreed to entry by this Court of a consent decree;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation and agreement for entry of a consent decree, IT IS HEREBY DECREED AND ORDERED that:
In order to resolve the Action and without admitting any liability, AFR acknowledges that Lounge 22 has trade dress rights in the Soho Combo, AFR admits it copied the Soho Combo, and AFR agrees not to copy the Soho Combo in the future and not to knowingly copy Lounge 22 proprietary furniture in the future. AFR warrants and represents that it has not knowingly copied, nor is it aware of any instance in which it has previously copied, Lounge 22 proprietary furniture.
Hon. James S. Otero United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...