JOINT STIPULATION RE DATES AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants InkSystem LLC, AF LLC, ART LLC, Lucky Print LLC, Inkredible LLC LLC, Andriy Kravchuk, Igor Bielov, and Artem Koshkalda (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel of record, agree and stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this action on or about September 8, 2016, charging Defendants with trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair competition and related claims;

WHEREAS pursuant to this Court's Order for Seizure, Docket No. 12, Plaintiffs served some of the Defendants with the Summons, Complaint and other documents on September 17, 2016, and also seized numerous of Defendants' business records which Plaintiffs are currently reviewing;

WHEREAS following the Court's Order for Seizure the Court also granted Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on September 21, 2016, ordered that the Parties confer as to the language, and ordered Plaintiffs to prepare a Proposed Order;

WHEREAS Defendants objected to the provision in the Proposed Preliminary Injunction lodged by Plaintiffs on September 27, 2016, Docket No. 22-2, for additional time to complete the seizure;

WHEREAS the Parties agree that should the Court be inclined to review Plaintiffs' request for additional time to complete the seizure separately, the Parties are otherwise in agreement as to all other language of the Proposed Preliminary Injunction, a revised copy of which is attached as Exhibit A;

WHEREAS should the Court in the interests of time enter the Parties' revised Proposed Preliminary Injunction, the only remaining issue in Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Entry of Proposed Preliminary Injunction, Docket No. 22, is Plaintiffs' request for additional time to complete the initial seizure which may be consolidated into Plaintiffs' pending Emergency Motion for Additional Time to Complete Seizure for the same relief, Docket No. 21;

WHEREAS all of the Defendants have been served and are represented by the same counsel who just completed a week long jury trial;

WHEREAS the deadline to Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint for the Defendants first served on September 17, 2016, was October 8, 2016; and

WHEREAS a brief continuance will allow Defendants' counsel time to meet with Defendants and prepare an Answer or response to the Complaint and will also permit Plaintiffs additional time for their preliminary review of Defendants' paper documents in preparation of an amendment to the Complaint.

NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate and agree that:

1. Defendants shall have through and until November 18, 2016, to file their response or Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint.

2. Plaintiffs shall have through and until November 18, 2016, to file their First Amended Complaint.

3. The Proposed Preliminary Injunction attached hereto as Exhibit A may be entered by the Court at its earliest convenience.

4. Upon entry of the Preliminary Injunction, the only remaining issue outstanding in Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Entry of Proposed Preliminary Injunction, Docket No. 22, is Plaintiffs' request for additional time to complete the initial seizure.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs") having filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Motion") and against Defendants InkSystem LLC, AF LLC, ART LLC, Lucky Print LLC, Inkredible LLC LLC, Andriy Kravchuk, Igor Bielov, and Artem Koshkalda (collectively "Defendants"), and following the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion on September 21, 2016, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion and makes the following findings:

1. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that Defendants are using Plaintiffs' trademarks or marks confusingly similar to Plaintiffs' trademarks, including those attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Plaintiffs' Trademarks") in connection with the importation, manufacture, distribution, sale and offer for sale of counterfeit and/or infringing ink cartridges bearing unauthorized reproductions or substantially similar copies of registered trademarks owned by Plaintiffs ("Unauthorized Products").

2. The sale of such Unauthorized Products will result in immediate and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs, if this relief is not ordered.

3. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over Plaintiffs and Defendants.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants, their officers, agents, servants and any persons, firms or corporations acting in concert or in participation with them, or having knowledge of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are enjoined and restrained from:

Defendants their officers, agents, servants and any persons, firms or corporations acting in concert or in participation with them, or having knowledge of this Order by personal service or otherwise, will impound during the pendency of this action:

a. All unauthorized products bearing Plaintiffs' Trademarks, or likenesses thereof;

b. Any other unauthorized products which reproduce, copy, counterfeit, imitate or bear any of Plaintiffs' Trademarks or which picture, reproduce, copy or use the likeness of or bear a substantial similarity to Plaintiffs' Trademarks;

c. Any labels, packages, wrappers, containers and any other unauthorized promotional or advertising material which reproduce, copy, counterfeit, imitate or bear any of Plaintiffs' Trademarks or which picture, reproduce, copy or use the likeness of or bear a substantial similarity to Plaintiffs' Trademarks;

d. Any molds, screens, patterns, plates, negatives, equipment, machinery or equipment used for making or manufacturing the Unauthorized Products or unauthorized items which bear Plaintiffs' Trademarks or which bear a substantial similarity to any of Plaintiffs' Trademarks, specifically including the vacuum sealing and repackaging equipment and any OEM or grey market cartridges used to produce the Unauthorized Products or component pieces; and

e. Any sales and supply of customer journals, ledgers, invoices, purchase orders, inventory control documents, bank records, catalogs and all other business records, believed to concern the manufacture, purchase, advertising, sale or offering for sale of the Unauthorized Products or component pieces.

4. The seizure of unauthorized goods, machinery and/or other items is confirmed and all seized items will remain and continue to be impounded in Plaintiffs' counsel's custody pending a final disposition of this action without the need to post any additional bond.

5. This Preliminary Injunction does not extend to any lawful sales of remanufactured products, which are made with used Epson ink cartridges first sold by Epson to consumers in the United States, that are re-filled and sold with a non-Epson brand name or as "generic" cartridges without prominent or deceptive use of Epson's trademarks. The Parties do not waive and expressly reserve their respective rights and defenses under the patent laws including pursuant to any future changes in the law.

6. This Preliminary Injunction also does not extend to the lawful resale of genuine Epson branded cartridges that have not been altered and are not materially different from Epson branded cartridges sold for resale in the United States in the condition they were first sold in the United States by Epson.

7. Any resales of Epson trademarked products by Defendants must not be opened or otherwise infringing or unlawful.

8. The findings herein are made without prejudice as to future findings of the Court by application of any party.

9. This Preliminary Injunction is issued without the posting by Plaintiffs of any additional bond and is effective as of September 21, 2016.

10. None of the foregoing constitutes an admission by Plaintiffs, or either of them, that Defendants are Authorized Epson Resellers.

11. Upon entry hereof, the Temporary Restraining Order herein, dated September 13, 2016, is vacated.

12. This Order shall be deemed to have been served upon Defendants at the time of the signing thereof by the Court.

13. This matter will remain open and pending before the Court to resolve any remaining issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.