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.

Chanel, Inc. v. Chanelbagsus.com

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

April 10, 2017

Chanel, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Chanelbagsus.com, and others, Defendants.

          SECOND AMENDED FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

          ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction to Add New Domain Names (ECF No. 35). Previously, the Court entered an Amended Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 34), which permanently enjoined the Defendants from, inter alia, manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling or offering to sell counterfeit and infringing goods using the Plaintiff's trademarks. The Plaintiff has presented clear and compelling evidence demonstrating multiple Defendants are acting in violation of the amended permanent injunction on an ongoing basis.

         A Court that issues a permanent injunction retains continuing jurisdiction to modify it whenever the principles of equity require it to do so. Permanent injunctions may be modified to impose more stringent requirements to ensure the original purposes of the injunction are met. Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exchange of Houston, Inc., 628 F.2d 500, 503 (5th Cir. 1980). If the relief originally ordered has not produced the intended result, the Court “should modify the decree so as to achieve the required result with all appropriate expedition.” United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 252, 88 S.Ct. 1496, 7401 (1968). Modification of an injunction is particularly appropriate where, as here, the defendant has acted to frustrate the purpose of the original injunction. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Otamedia Ltd., 331 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (amending permanent injunction).

         The Court has carefully reviewed the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction To Add New Domain Names, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction To Add New Domain Names (ECF No. 35) is granted. Second Amended Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Chanel, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), and against Defendants, the Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule “A” hereto (collectively “Defendants”), on all Counts of the Complaint as follows:

         1. Permanent Injunctive Relief:

         Defendants and their officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons acting in concert and participation with them are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from:

a. manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, importing, advertising, or promoting, distributing, selling or offering to sell counterfeit and infringing goods using Plaintiff's trademarks identified in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint and Schedule “B” attached thereto (the “Chanel Marks”);
b. using the Chanel Marks in connection with the sale of any unauthorized goods;
c. using any logo, and/or layout which may be calculated to falsely advertise the services or products of Defendants offered for sale or sold via the domain names identified on Schedule “A” hereto (collectively the “Subject Domain Names”) and/or any other website, domain name, or business, as being sponsored by, authorized by, endorsed by, or in any way associated with Plaintiff;
d. falsely representing themselves as being connected with Plaintiff, through sponsorship or association;
e. engaging in any act which is likely to falsely cause members of the trade and/or of the purchasing public to believe any goods or services of Defendants offered for sale or sold via the Subject Domain Names and/or any other website, domain name, or business are in any way endorsed by, approved by, and/or associated with Plaintiff;
f. using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the Chanel Marks in connection with the publicity, promotion, sale, or advertising of any goods sold by Defendants via the Subject Domain Names and/or any other website, domain name, or business;
g. affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the sale of any goods, a false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending to falsely describe or represent goods offered for sale or sold by Defendants via the Subject Domain Names and/or any other website, domain name, ...

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.