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.

Van Cleef & Arpels, S.A. v. Tru's Diamonds

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 27, 2019

VAN CLEEF & ARPELS, S.A. and VAN CLEEF & ARPELS, a division of RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
TRU'S DIAMONDS, Defendant.

          FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT ON CONSENT

          Hon. Josephine L. Staton United States District Judge.

         This matter, having been commenced by Plaintiffs Van Cleef & Arpels, S.A. and Van Cleef & Arpels, a division of Richemont North America, Inc. (together “VCA” or “Plaintiffs”) by filing a complaint against Tru's Diamonds (“Defendant”) on March 21, 2019 (the “Civil Action”);

         Plaintiffs having asserted in the Civil Action claims for trade dress infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and unfair competition under California State Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., based on Defendant's promotion, offering for sale, and sale of jewelry products that use imitations of VCA's federally registered trade dress;

         Defendant having agreed to entry of this Final Order and Judgment on Consent (the “Judgment”);

         Defendant making, in connection with and as inducement for the entry of the Judgment, the following admissions and representations that are material terms of and form the basis for entry of this Judgment and upon which Plaintiffs and the Court have relied:

a. Defendant acknowledges VCA's exclusive rights in and to the Alhambra Trade Dress (as defined in the Complaint);
b. As of March 26, 2019, Defendant had ceased promoting, offering for sale, selling, and distributing any product that bears an imitation of the Alhambra Trade Dress or any confusingly similar trade dress (collectively, the “Infringing Products”);
c. Defendant has not manufactured any of the Infringing Products;
d. Defendant's sole source for the Infringing Products was a man who visited Plaintiff's store in November 2018 (the “Source”), who Defendant believes was from Hong Kong. The Source did not leave any contact information and Defendant paid for the Infringing Products in cash and no receipt was provided by the Source. Defendant has not seen the source since January 2019;
e. Defendant has ceased purchasing any products from the Source;
f. Defendant's total sales from the Infringing Products were $4, 385;
g. Defendant has no remaining inventory of any of the Infringing Products; and
h. Defendant has the legal capacity to enter into this Judgment and to carry out all obligations and ...

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.