Case summary 2.2 PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief summary of 2.2 in legal summary template. Do NOT COPY...

Description

Rojas 1 Professor Milich Business Law 261 3 August 2019 Case Summary-2.2 Case: GUCCI AMERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. WANG HUOQING, Defendant. No. C–09–05969 JCS. Facts: The parties in the lawsuit are Gucci America, the plaintiff, and Wang Huoqing, the defendant. The dispute was about trademarking infringement and counterfeiting, and how this has allegedly cause damage to the company, Gucci America. The plaintiff, Gucci America was located at the time in 685 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022. The defendant is from China. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended complaint on January 29th, 2010. The defendant had bought and administered online stores with names such as bag2do.com, ebagdo.com, ibagdo.com and many others, totaling 24 domain names. In these sites, the defendant had allegedly sold knock off versions of brand name products Without the brands consent. These brands such as Gucci, Balenciaga, and Bottega, were sold with a vastly different material than the original products, causing potential confusion with customers and creating a bad reputation for these high-end brands. Issue of law: The issue of law in this case is 1) Trademark counterfeiting 2) False designation of origin 3) Injunction for defendant Holding: The decision made was in favor of the plaintiff, where they would be awarded for the damage made from the defendant. A permanent injunction against defendant and those who participated in business to prevent future connection with plaintiff, and association with brand. Injunction also to restrain manufacturing and selling of plaintiff's marks. Gucci was awarded $440,000, Bottega $4,000, Balenciaga $8,000 in statutory damages. Gucci was awarded $12,708.92, Bottega $116.08, Balenciaga $237.10 for prejudgment interest. For trademark infringement the plaintiff was awarded $233.33 dollars. Legal Reasoning:

Rojas 2 The court used a similar case called Chanel Inc V. Casondra Tshimanga to calculate the price in damages. Similar trademarks from the damages were moved and used a higher cost per violation award for a more reduced number of violations. The injunction was granted because the plaintiff would pass through unfixable injury to reputation and goodwill if injunction was not granted. The plaintiff showed that they were rightful owners of the trademarks. Evidence was shown that the websites were linked with Wang Huoqing and that he used Gucci trademarks in his product's. Therefore, trademark counterfeiting an infringement was casted in favor of plaintiff....