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.

Nike, Inc. v. Alomari

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- SAN FRANCISCO


June 11, 2010

NIKE, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
FAISAL M. K. ALOMARI, ALSO KNOWN FAISAL MOHAMED KAID ALOMARI, AN INDIVIDUAL AND D/B/A RICHMOND SMOKE SHOP, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Annie S. Wang

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

The Court, having read and considered the Joint Stipulation re Entry of Proposed Consent Decree that has been executed by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. ("Nike" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Faisal M. K. Alomari, also known Faisal Mohamed Kaid Alomari, an individual and d/b/a Richmond Smoke Shop ("Defendant") in this action:

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS that this Permanent Injunction shall be and is hereby entered in the within action as follows:

1) This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action and over the subject matter hereof pursuant to pursuant to the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2) Service of process was properly made on the Defendant.

3) Nike owns or controls the pertinent rights in and to the trademarks listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (The trademarks identified in Exhibit "A" are collectively referred to herein as the "Nike Trademarks").

4) Nike alleges Defendant has made unauthorized uses of the Nike Trademarks or substantially similar likenesses or colorable imitations thereof.

5) Any and all of Defendant's counterclaims asserted against Plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice.

6) Defendant and his agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert and participation with him who receive actual notice of the Injunction are hereby restrained and enjoined, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, from:

a) Infringing the Nike Trademarks, either directly or contributorily, in any manner, by:

i) Importing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling and/or offering for sale any unauthorized products which picture, reproduce, copy or use the likenesses of or bear a confusing similarity to any of the Nike Trademarks ("Unauthorized Products");

ii) Importing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling and/or offering for sale in connection thereto any unauthorized promotional materials, labels, packaging or containers which picture, reproduce, copy or use the likenesses of or bear a confusing similarity to any of the Nike Trademarks;

iii) Engaging in any conduct that tends falsely to represent that, or is likely to confuse, mislead or deceive purchasers, Defendant's customers and/or members of the public to believe, the actions of Defendant, the products sold by Defendant, or Defendant himself is connected with Nike, is sponsored, approved or licensed by Nike, or is affiliated with Nike;

iv) Affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the importation, manufacture, distribution, advertising, sale and/or offer for sale or other use of any goods or services, a false description or representation, including words or other symbols, tending to falsely describe or represent such goods as being those of Nike.

7) Defendant is ordered to deliver for destruction all Unauthorized Products, including footwear, and labels, signs, prints, packages, dyes, wrappers, receptacles and advertisements relating thereto in their possession or under their control bearing any of the Nike Trademarks or any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitations thereof, and all plates, molds, heat transfers, screens, matrices and other means of making the same.

8) Except for the allegations contained herein, the claim alleged in the First Amended Complaint against Defendant Alomari, only, by Nike are dismissed with prejudice.

9) This Consent Decree shall be deemed to have been served upon Defendant at the time of its execution by the Court.

10) The Court finds there is no just reason for delay in entering this Injunction and, pursuant to Rule 54(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court directs immediate entry of this Permanent Injunction against Defendant.

9) The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action to entertain such further proceedings and to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate to implement and enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree.

10) The above-captioned action, shall, upon filing by Plaintiff of the Settlement Agreement, Joint Stipulation Re Entry Of [Proposed] Judgment, Proposed Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation, and requesting entry of judgment against Defendant, be reopened should Defendant default under the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

11) This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Defendant for the purpose of making further orders necessary or proper for the construction or modification of this consent decree and judgment;

20100611

© 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.