Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC v. SAHAKYAN, 2:15-cv-03690-AB-JPR. (2015)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20151218a45 Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 17, 2015
Summary: DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ANDR BIROTTE, Jr. , District Judge . TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: The Court, having considered the Motion for Default Judgment ("Motion") of Plaintiffs BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (collectively, "BMW" or "Plaintiffs") against Defendant Hamlet Sahakyan, d/b/a Hamlet's BMW Service, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED, and this Judgment shall be an
More

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

The Court, having considered the Motion for Default Judgment ("Motion") of Plaintiffs BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (collectively, "BMW" or "Plaintiffs") against Defendant Hamlet Sahakyan, d/b/a Hamlet's BMW Service, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED, and this Judgment shall be and is hereby entered against Defendant in the above-captioned action as follows:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant and over the subject matter in issue based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 1338(b), and 1367(a), as well as 15 U.S.C. § 1121. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b). This Court further has continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms and provisions of this Judgment.

2. The Court finds that Defendant committed the acts referred to in Plaintiffs' Motion and that Defendant's acts constitute:

a.) Breach of contract under California common law regarding the February 2013 and May 18, 2015 written agreements Defendant signed with BMW;

b.) Willful trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1114, of federally registered United States trademarks belonging to Plaintiffs, the "Roundel" logo and "BMW" word mark;

c.) Willful unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), with regard to Plaintiffs' Roundel logo and "BMW" word mark; and

d.) Unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. and trademark infringement and unfair competition under the common law of California with regard to Plaintiffs' Roundel logo and "BMW" word mark.

3. Defendant, his agents, distributors, suppliers, business partners, related companies, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with any of them, be enjoined and restrained, during the pendency of this action, and permanently thereafter, from:

(a) using BMW's Roundel logo, or any other name or mark that is confusingly similar to this mark, or any other mark or designation of BMW or its affiliates, including, but not limited to, use of these marks on signs, flags, banners, websites, photographs, advertisements, coupons, marketing materials, stationery, business cards, and in oral and written communications; (b) making any trademark use of the "BMW" mark, including but not limited to the trade names Hamlet's BMW Service, Hamlet's BMW, Hamlet BMW Inc., and Hamlet BMW; (c) making any use of any other BMW logos, or trademark use of any other BMW trademarks, or colorable imitations thereof; and (d) doing any other act or thing likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive others into believing that Defendant, or his products or services, come from, or are connected with, sponsored by, or approved by, BMW.

4. Plaintiffs shall recover, pursuant to Lanham Act § 35, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action, in the amount of $23,878.00 in attorneys' fees and $1,421.28 in costs, for a total of $25,299.28.

5. The Court finds there is no just reason for delay in entering this Judgment and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), directs immediate entry of this Judgment.

6. 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; and

7. Violation of this judgment shall expose Defendant and all other enjoined parties to all applicable penalties and further orders, including contempt of Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer