Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01238/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01238-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION C 05 01238 CW

-1-

MARTIN R. GLICK (No. 40187)

JEFFREY E. FAUCETTE (No. 193066)

ROBERT T. CRUZEN (No. 203658)

HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY 

FALK & RABKIN

A Professional Corporation

Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-4024

Telephone: 415/434-1600

Facsimile: 415/217-5910

Attorneys for Plaintiff

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, a 

Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

GERALD CHAMALES CORP., a California 

corporation, doing business as RHINOTEK 

COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. and also 

doing business as OMNI COMPUTER 

PRODUCTS,

Defendant.

No. C 05 01238 CW

CONSENT JUDGMENT AND 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

In this action for false advertising and unfair competition against Defendant Defendant 

Gerald Chamales Corp. (“Defendant”), Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company seeks permanent 

injunctive relief, actual damages, and attorney’s fees. This Court has jurisdiction over the 

subject matter of the action and over the parties.

The parties have agreed to entry of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction in 

compromise of their respective claims and defenses in this action. Good cause appearing 

therefor,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION C 05 01238 CW

-2-

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, DECLARED AND ORDERED THAT:

1. Effective December 1, 2005, Defendant, including its shareholders, officers, 

owners, agents, parents, subsidiaries, employees and all persons acting or claiming to act on 

its behalf, under its direction or authority, and all persons acting or claiming to act in concert 

or in participation with them or any of them, are permanently enjoined from selling, offering 

for sale, or otherwise distributing spent or used HP inkjet cartridges that have been refilled 

(hereinafter “Rhinotek Inkjet Products”) unless the Consumer Disclosure (as defined below) 

is prominently and legibly displayed on the front-most panel of each Rhinotek Inkjet 

Product’s outer packaging, and on any associated advertising and sales materials. 

a. The Consumer Disclosures are “Used Cartridge,” “Refilled Cartridge” or 

“Recycled Cartridge.” Rhinotek will not add any other words, symbols, or numbers to the 

Consumer Disclosure.

b. The Consumer Disclosure must be no smaller than one-eighth of an inch in 

height and two inches in width. 

c. The Consumer Disclosure must be the uppermost text on the front face of 

the package, excepting that Rhinotek may elect to place the phrase “100% GUARANTEED” 

above the Consumer Disclosure in the same or a smaller size.

d. The Consumer Disclosure must appear in solid black print against a sharply 

contrasting background.

e. The Consumer Disclosure on the package must be surrounded by adequate 

clear space of at least one-eighth of an inch on all sides.

2. Effective September 14, 2005, Rhinotek will not order any packaging or 

promotional materials that do not bear a Consumer Disclosure as described herein. 

3. For avoidance of doubt, nothing herein restricts the subsequent sale or 

distribution of Rhinotek Inkjet Products that Rhinotek has placed in the channel (e.g., 

Ingram Micro) prior to December 1, 2005. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION C 05 01238 CW

-3-

4. Effective December 1, 2005, Defendant, including its shareholders, officers, 

owners, agents, parents, subsidiaries, employees and all persons acting or claiming to act on 

its behalf, under its direction or authority, and all persons acting or claiming to act in concert 

or in participation with them or any of them, are permanently enjoined from use of the 

phrase “Heavy Duty” in connection with the Rhinotek Inkjet Products except as part of the 

logo depicted below which may appear on the Rhinotek Inkjet Products packaging: 

5. Effective December 1, 2005, Defendant, including its shareholders, officers, 

owners, agents, parents, subsidiaries, employees and all persons acting or claiming to act on 

its behalf, under its direction or authority, and all persons acting or claiming to act in concert 

or in participation with them or any of them, are permanently enjoined from increasing the 

size and visual impact of the largest package reference to HP or HP products on its inkjet 

packaging unless the size and visual impact of the Consumer Disclosure are increased 

proportionately.

6. Defendant, including its shareholders, officers, owners, agents, parents, 

subsidiaries, employees and all persons acting or claiming to act on its behalf, under its 

direction or authority, and all persons acting or claiming to act in concert or in participation 

with them or any of them, are permanently enjoined from using on its Rhinotek Inkjet 

Product’s outer packaging and on any associated advertising and sales materials the term 

“manufacturing” or the phrase “manufactured with recycled components,” or similar terms 

or phrases to describe the process of cleaning, testing and refilling an HP inkjet cartridge. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION C 05 01238 CW

-4-

DATED: October 11, 2005

/s/ CLAUDIA WILKEN

HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION C 05 01238 CW

-5-

IT IS AGREED that this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction may be 

entered as a final determination between the Parties in this Action.

DATED: October __, 2005. MARTIN R. GLICK

JEFFREY E. FAUCETTE

ROBERT T. CRUZEN

HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY 

FALK & RABKIN

A Professional Corporation

By:

MARTIN R. GLICK

Attorneys for Plaintiff HEWLETT-PACKARD 

COMPANY

STEVEN A. LAMB

MARC J. SHRAKE

STEPHANIE R. LEWIS

ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL, MASON & 

GETTE LLP

By:

 STEVEN A. LAMB

Attorneys for Defendant GERALD CHAMALES 

CORP., a California corporation, doing business as 

RHINOTEK COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. and 

also doing business as OMNI COMPUTER 

PRODUCTS