UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - EASTERN DIVISION
September 28, 2010
HABERSHAM PLANTATION CORPORATION, A GEORGIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF(S),
EASTERN LEGENDS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Valerie Fairbank, United States District Judge
[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE
Plaintiff Habersham Plantation Corporation ("Habersham"), having filed its Complaint alleging various acts in violation of the United States Copyright Laws and demanding injunctive relief and damages relative to the various accused products, as appears more fully in that Complaint, and Prayer for Relief contained therein, against Defendant Eastern Legends, Inc. ("Eastern"), and the parties having agreed on an amicable basis for resolution of the above controversy, without trial and without adjudication of the issues of fact and conclusions of law manifested by said controversy, through entry of this Consent Decree.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
1. Habersham and Eastern each respectively acknowledge, by execution of this CONSENT DECREE, this Court's jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the present litigation, as well as acknowledge this Court's continuing jurisdiction over the enforcement of this Consent Decree.
2. Eastern admits that Habersham owns valid copyrights in the following furniture designs, collectively "the Asserted Designs": Approach Road Cabinet, Preston Corner Cabinet, Chateau Sideboard/Curio, Kirtlington Vanity, Giovanni Round End Table, Giovanni Sideboard, Giovanni Round Coffee Table, Sophia Cabinet, Marcelle Chest, Colette Chest, Bella Chest, Chantilly Bed, Buckingham 3 Piece Entertainment Center, Cotswald Cupboard, Limoges Arm Chair, Courtney Coffee Table, Edington Coffee Table, 9 Drawer Commode, and Palisade Corner Cupboard, photos of which are shown in Exhibit 1, attached. The photos of Exhibit 1 are exemplars of Habersham's designs and do not define the scope of Habersham's copyright rights. As used herein, the "Asserted Designs" is further limited to the copyrightable subject matter within the specified furniture designs.
3. Accordingly, Eastern, its principals, officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees, as well as any successors and/or assigns of Eastern and all those acting in privity, concert or participation with Eastern, shall be and are hereby permanently enjoined unless otherwise directed by Habersham from:
a. Imitating, copying, duplicating, reproducing any of the Asserted Designs or preparing infringing derivative works from any of the Asserted Designs;
b. Manufacturing, having manufactured, importing, or exporting any furniture item which copies any one or more of the Asserted Designs, or which is substantially similar to any one or more of the Asserted Designs and/or which is an infringing derivative work of any one or more of the Asserted Designs;
c. Advertising, marketing, promoting, selling, offering to sell, or otherwise attempting to distribute, in any way, any furniture item which copies any one or more of the Asserted Designs, which is substantially similar to any one or more of the Asserted Designs and/or which is an infringing derivative work of any one or more of the Asserted Designs;
d. Enabling, facilitating or assisting any other individual or entity, in any way, in manufacturing, importing, exporting, destroying, disposing of, advertising, marketing, promoting, selling, offering to sell or otherwise distributing any furniture item which copies any one or more of the Asserted Designs, which is substantially similar to any one or more of the Asserted Designs and/or which is an infringing derivative work of any one or more of the Asserted Designs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
With the exception of the retention of jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement of September 24, 2010, this case is hereby dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing their own respective costs and attorney's fees. All pretrial and trial dates are stricken, and all pending motions are denied as moot.
Defendants are advised that any violation of the Consent Decree may be viewed as a contempt of court.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.