Monster Energy Co. v. Peng, et al., No. 17 C 414, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2017) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow granted plaintiff Monster Energy’s motion for summary judgment, granting final judgment, a permanent injunction and attorney’s fees in this Lanham Act dispute involving defendants’ use of Monster Energy’s Claw Icon Mark and

Luxottica Group S.P.A. v. Li, No. 16 C 487 & 1227, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2017) (Shah, J.).

Judge Shah granted plaintiffs (collectively “Oakley”) summary judgment of Lanham Act trademark infringement and counterfeiting and awarded statutory damages of $60,000 in this case involving Oakley’s WAYFARER and ALHAMBRA marks.

Defendants did not dispute

River Light V, L.P. v. Zhangyali, No. 15 C 5918, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2016) (Shah, J.).

Judge Shah granted plaintiffs (collectively “Tory Burch”) summary judgment and awarded statutory damages of $100,000, a permanent injunction and attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined in this Lanham Act dispute involving counterfeit Tory

Bulgari, S.P.A. V. Zou Xiaohong, No. 15 C 5148, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2015) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff Bulgari’s motion for summary judgment of trademark infringement, a permanent injunction and its attorney’s fees and costs regarding Bulgari’s BVLGARI marks used in relation to counterfeit rings.

It was undisputed

Luxottica USA LLC v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs., No. 14 C 9061, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 18, 2015) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber granted plaintiff Luxottica’s motion for summary judgment, statutory damages, permanent injunction and attorney’s fees in this Lanham Act false designation of origin dispute regarding online sales of counterfeit Ray-Ban eyewear.

Kinsey v. Jambow, Ltd., No. 14 C 2236, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2014) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in this music copyright case involving three reggae songs. The Court awarded plaintiffs $22,500 in statutory damages, a permanent injunction and their reasonable attorney’s fees.

Chrome Hearts LLC v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule A, No. 15 C 3491, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2015) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall granted plaintiff Chrome Hearts’ default judgment against various defendants (the “Defaulting Defendants”) holding that each defendant was infringing the CHROME HEARTS trademarks. The Court previously entered a

Malibu Media, LLC v. Funderburg, No. 13 C 2614, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2015) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow granted plaintiff Malibu Media’s motion for default judgment in this copyright case regarding pornographic movies.  Malibu Media sufficiently pled copyright infringement: 1) Malibu Media owned a copyright in the movie; and 2) defendant downloaded

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Spear, No. 10 C 6697, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012) (Dow, J.).

 Judge Dow granted summary judgment to plaintiff 7-Eleven in this contract and Lanham Act case after defendants (collectively “Vianna”) failed to respond to 7-Eleven’s Local Rule 56.1 statements of fact or submit its own supplemental statements of

RNA Corp. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 08 C 5953, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2010) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel held that defendant Procter & Gamble’s (“P&G”) intellectual property rights could not be held infringed based upon the available evidence and held that on the available record, the Court could not grant attorney’s fees because a prevailing party could not be determined, in this Lanham Act case regarding P&G’s alleged trademarks and trade dress in its Herbal Essence hydrating shampoos and conditioners. Through a series of settlement conferences, the parties agreed to the scope of a preliminary and then a permanent injunction, but were unable to determine money damages issues. The parties, therefore, agreed to submit the remaining issues to trial by the Court on the papers. The Court, therefore, ruled based upon the parties’ written submissions. In my experience, this is a relatively unique way to resolve and especially to try a case in federal court. And it is an excellent example of how willing the Northern District bench tends to be to find cost-effective ways to resolve what are otherwise often prohibitively expensive intellectual property disputes.

Continue Reading