Case 2:07—cv~07002—ODW—E Document 13
`l
`A0120 Rev/.1/99
`
`Filed 03/17/2008
`
`Page 1 of3
`
`Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
`.
`Washington,
`
`:3
`
`I
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 § 290 ahdior '15 ‘US C -§ l'_!;1x3-you_:a_1;o_)i‘er_<3hy advised that a court action has been
`I
`h
`‘
`"‘ ltaifme following G Patents or
`G Trademarks:
`tiled in theU.S. District com entraI"“"‘ .
`,
`.s. DISTRICT coum
`‘ enu-alfiisu-ic1~of Galifomia
`
`_u
`
`PLAINTIEE
`Nike, Inc.
`
`C
`
`'
`
`’
`
`DEFENDANT
`Johnnie Thomton, and Does l - 10, inclusive,
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patenl(s) have been included;
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`INCLUDED BY
`
`G Amendment
`
`G Answer
`
`G Cross Bill
`
`G Other Pleading
`
`TRJ‘$§:'M’iTR?(RN0
`
`%’}{TfR‘fD':_.fi“TE$
`
`HOLDER or PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`In the above-—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgment issued:
`DECISIONIIUDGEMENT
`
`3/13/08 default judgment against defendant
`
`(See attached)
`
`CLERK
`SHERRI R CARTER
`
`y
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`L CHAI
`
`DATE
`3/17/08
`
`ttt
`
`Copy _l—Upon initintion of action. mail this copy to Commissioner Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this topy to Commissioner
`Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Commissioncr Copy 4——Casc file copy
`
`my ORIGINAL
`
`

`
`Filed 03/17/2008
`Case 2:07-cv-07002-ODW-E Document 13
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`Nike Registrations for Footwear
`International Class 25
`
`..
`
`Re'stration Date
`Janu
`13,1981
`Jul 6, 1982
`November 2. 1982
`
`Nike
`
`1,277,066
`
`NIKE w/Swoosh device
`
`AIR JORDAN
`
`AIR TRAINER
`
`Jum Man device
`
`1,370,283
`
`1,558,100
`
`Ma 8, 1984
`Jul 3, 1984
`Jul 3, 1984
`I November 27, 1984
`November 12, 1985
`March 5.1985
`March 5, 1985
`March 19, 1985
`November 12, 1985
`October 11. 1988
`October 11, 1988
`Setember 26, 1989
`Deoember12,1989
`November 19, 1991
`December 17, 1991
`Ma 12,1992
`November 24, 1992
`December 22, 1992
`Au ; st 24, 1993
`Janu
`14, 1997
`Janua
`21, 1997
`
`AIR SOLO FLIGHT
`AIR FLIGHT
`AIR DESCHUTZ
`Jum Man device
`AIR TRAINER MAX
`AIRMAX in oval
`AIR UPTEMPO in crest
`AIR with Swoosh device
`October 7, 1997
`NIKE with Swoosh device
`ACG NIKE in trian 1e December 2, 1997
`'9
`October 13, 1998
`December 8, 1998
`Auust 14,2001
`December 11, 2001
`
`esrgn
`
`an woos
`or
`s lized “B”
`NIKE ALPHA PROJECT as
`device
`WAFFLE RACER
`PHYLITE
`
`2,209,815
`2,476,882
`2,517,735
`
`2,652,318
`2,657,832
`
`November 19, 2002
`December 10, 2002
`
`

`
`Filed 03/17/2008
`Case 2:07—cv—07002—ODW—E Document 13
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`DRI-STAR
`
`WAFFLE TRAINER
`THERMA-STAR
`
`"Basketball la er outline
`
`December 17, 2002
`Febru
`25, 2003
`
`Febm 3, 2004
`October 12, 2004
`
`Ma 2, 2006
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv—O7002-ODW—E Document 13-2
`
`Filed 03/17/2008
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`1
`
`J. gngew Cgombs (SBN 123881)
`an
`coom s c.
`Anriie S. WangD(Sc}§I’\7l1 243027)
`Sznfgrla
`c00(r:nbsp% 0021) C
`.
`.
`rew oom s,
`.
`517 East Wilson A_venue, Suite 202
`¥‘i“‘li“"’ Ca‘§i"§“'s%3‘§§€o
`e e
`one:
`—
`Facslfmile:
`i818i500-3201
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Nike, Inc.
`
`ENTER / J S-6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff, L JUDGMENT
`URSUANT O ENTRY OF
`DEFAULT
`
`Case No. CV 07-7002 ODW (Ex)
`
`Johnnie Thornton, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`This cause having come before this Court on the motion of Plaintiff Nike, Inc.
`
`(“Nike” or “Plaintiff’) for entry of default judgment and permanent injunction against
`
`Defendant Johnnie Thornton (“Defendant”);
`
`AND, the Court having read and considered the pleadings, declarations and
`
`exhibits on file in this matter and having reviewed such evidence as was presented in
`
`support of Plaintiffs Motion;
`
`AND, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, the Court finds the
`
`following facts:
`
`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”).
`
`All of the Nike Trademarks are current and in full force and effect.
`
`Nike v, Thornton, et al : Proposed Judgment
`Pursuant to Default
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-07002~ODW—E Document 13-2
`
`Filed 03/17/2008
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`As a direct result of Nike's longstanding use, sales, advertising and marketing,
`
`the Nike Trademarks have acquired secondary and distinctive meaning among the
`
`public who have come to identify the Nike Trademarks with Nike and its products.
`
`Many of the marks have become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
`
`Additionally, all of the Nike Trademarks qualify as famous marks pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1125.
`
`Defendant engages in the manufacture, purchase, distribution, offering for sale
`
`and/or sale of counterfeit and/or infringing footwear bearing the Nike Trademarks to
`
`the general public.
`
`Defendant in this action is a seller of counterfeit Nike branded shoes through the
`
`Internet, including but not necessarily limited to the website isupplykicks.com.
`
`Through such active manufacturing, purchasing, distributing, offering of sale and
`
`selling such unlicensed and counterfeit footwear, Nike is irreparably damaged through
`
`consumer confusion, dilution and tamishment of its valuable trademarks.
`
`Defendant has caused to be imported, distributed, offered for sale and sold
`
`footwear bearing one or more of the Nike Trademarks without the authorization of
`
`Nike. Defendant manufactures, purchases, distributes, offers for sale and sells
`
`footwear and related merchandise bearing the Nike Trademarks in California, and in
`
`interstate commerce has and is likely to cause confusion, deception and mistake or to
`
`deceive as to the source and origin of the footwear and related merchandise in that the
`
`buying public may conclude that the products sold by Defendant is authorized,
`
`sponsored, approved or associated with Nike.
`
`Defendant’s use in commerce of The Nike Trademarks in the sale of footwear
`
`and related merchandise is an infringement of Nike's registered trademarks in violation
`
`of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125.
`
`Defendant has profited from his unlawful activities. Unless Defendant’s
`
`conduct is enjoined, Nike and its goodwill and reputation will continue to suffer
`
`Nike v. Thornton, et al.: Proposed Judgment
`Pursuant to Default
`
`— 2 —
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv—07002—ODW-E Document 13-2
`
`Filed 03/’l 7/2008
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`irreparable injury which cannot be adequately calculated or compensated solely by
`
`money damages. Accordingly, Nike seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
`
`pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
`
`Defendant committed the acts alleged in the Complaint intentionally,
`
`fraudulently, maliciously, willfully, wantonly and oppressively with the intent to
`
`injure Nike and its business.
`
`The liability of the Defendant in the above—referenced action for his acts in
`
`violation of Nike’s rights is knowing and willful, and as such, the Court expressly
`
`finds that there is no just reason for delay in entering the default judgment and
`
`permanent injunction sought herein.
`
`Therefore, based upon the foregoing facts, and
`
`GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, THE COURT ORDERS that this
`
`Judgment 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, §ts_eg., as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`Service of process was properly made on the Defendant.
`
`Defendant has made unauthorized uses of the Nike Trademarks or substantially
`
`similar likenesses or colorable imitations thereof.
`
`4)
`
`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 from:
`
`a)
`
`Infringing the Nike Trademarks, either directly or contributorily, in any
`
`manner, including generally, but not limited to manufacturing, importing,
`
`distributing, advertising, selling and/or offering for sale any unauthorized
`
`product which features any of the Nike Trademarks (“Unauthorized Products”),
`
`and, specifically from:
`
`Nike v. Thornton, et n|.: Proposed Judgment
`Pursuant to Default
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-O‘/002-ODW-E Document 13-2
`
`Filed 03/17/2008
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`i)
`
`Importing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling and/or
`
`offering for sale the Unauthorized Products or any other unauthorized
`
`products which picture, reproduce, copy or use the likenesses of or bear a
`
`confusing similarity to any of the Nike Trademarks;
`
`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.
`
`5)
`
`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.
`
`Nike v. Thomlon, et al.: Proposed Judgment
`Pursuant to Default
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-07002-ODW~E Document 13-2
`
`Filed 03/17/2008
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`6)
`
`Defendant is ordered to pay damages to Nike pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 in
`
`the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
`
`7)
`
`Defendant is ordered to pay interest on the principal amount of the judgment to
`
`Plaintiff at the statutory rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1961(a).
`
`8)
`
`This Judgment shall be deemed to have been served upon Defendant at the time
`
`of its execution by the Court.
`
`9)
`
`The Court finds there is no just reason for delay in entering this Judgment and,
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), the Court directs immediate entry of this Judgment
`
`against Defendant.
`
`10)
`
`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 Judgment.
`
`_
`_
`rig t
`tlS_.
`on.
`Judge, United States District Court,
`Central District of California
`
`DATED: March 13, 2008
`
`PRESENTED BY:
`
`J. Andrew Coombs,
`A Professional Corporation
`
`By:
`
`J. Andrew Coomfis
`Annie S. Wang
`_
`Attorneys for Plainti f Nike, Inc.
`
`Nike v. Thornton, et 511.: Proposed Judgment
`Pursuant to Default