Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Kenrico LTD v. Lapik

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 9, 2019

Kenrico LTD, a Japan Limited Company, Plaintiff,
v.
Evgeny Lapik d.b.a. LAPIK, an individual, Defendant.

          CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

          OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The Court, pursuant to the Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment, including Permanent Injunction, against Defendant Evgeny Lapik d.b.a. LAPIK (“Stipulation”), by and between Plaintiff Kenrico LTD through its counsel of record, and Defendant Evgeny Lapik d.b.a. LAPIK, pro per, filed concurrently herewith, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING hereby ORDERS, ADJUDICATES and DECREES that a final judgment, including a permanent injunction, shall be and hereby is entered against Defendant in the above-referenced matter as follows:

         1. FINDING OF FACTS.

         a. This case involves Plaintiffs claim for false advertising pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 and California common law.

         b. Plaintiff Kenrico is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and marketing a range of consumer products. One of Kenrico's most prominent products comprises footpads used for personal care that contain the ingredient sporopollenin.

         c. Defendant Evgeny Lapik is an individual residing at the address:

5111 South Regal Street
Spokane, WA 99223 Telephone (509) 900-7487
Email: evgenii.lapik@gmail.com

         d. Defendant Evgeny Lapik sells a competing foot pad product on the website Amazon.com under the seller name LAPIK.

         e. Defendant warranted and admits the following facts in the Stipulation under penalty of perjury:

• Defendant sourced his foot pad products (“Accused Products”) from Hebei Houde Hanfang Medical Devices Group Co. ltd. (“Alipads”) and Alibaba Group (“Alibaba”);
• Defendant was induced by Alipads to believe that the Accused Products contained the ingredient sporopollenin, when the Accused Products in fact did not contain any sporopollenin; . Defendant admits that he used marketing material and content provided by Alipads that falsely represented the Accused Products' ingredients;
• Defendant admits that the Accused Products are of inferior quality to plaintiffs products and use retail ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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