Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03240/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03240-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

[REVISED PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:18-cv-03240-WHO - 1 -

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

GREGORY S. GILCHRIST (State Bar No. 111536)

RYAN T. BRICKER (State Bar No. 269100)

GIA L. CINCONE (State Bar No. 141668)

CALLA E. YEE (State Bar No. 306652)

Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1900

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 576-0200

Facsimile: (415) 576-0300

Email: ggilchrist@kilpatricktownsend.com

rbricker@kilpatricktownsend.com

gcincone@kilpatricktownsend.com

cyee@kilpatricktownsend.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LEVI STRAUSS & CO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEVI STRAUSS & CO.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DORSAZ, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-03240-WHO

JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION

Judge: Honorable William H. Orrick

Complaint Filed: May 31, 2019

Trial Date: Not Yet Set

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was properly noticed and served and was 

noticed for hearing on May 8, 2019, at 2:00pm. The Court rules as follows:

I. Summary of the Complaint

1. Plaintiff Levi Strauss & Co. (“LS&Co.”) has filed a Complaint alleging trademark 

infringement, dilution, and unfair competition under federal and California law against Dorsaz, Inc. 

(“Defendant” or “Dorsaz”). LS&Co. also sued a retailer of Dorsaz’s XELEMENT brand products, 

Nanal, Inc., who was dismissed from this case earlier. (Docket No. 22.) LS&Co. alleges that Dorsaz

has promoted, advertised, distributed, offered, and sold clothing products, including jeans and other 

apparel, that violate LS&Co.’s rights in a number of its federally registered trademark. LS&Co. 

further alleges that many of the allegedly infringing products that Dorsaz has manufactured, sourced, 

marketed, offered for sale, and/or sold display designs that are confusingly similar to LS&Co.’s 

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 12
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

[REVISED PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:18-cv-03240-WHO - 2 -

Arcuate Stitching Design Trademark (the “Arcuate trademark”). Defendant has failed to respond to 

LS&Co.’s Complaint and default was entered on August 22, 2018. (Docket No. 13.)

II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

2. LS&Co. has federal trademark registrations for its Arcuate trademark. LS&Co. 

continuously has used its trademark for well over a century to distinguish its products. (Complaint 

¶¶ 10-11.)

3. The Arcuate trademark consists of an inherently distinctive pocket stitching design 

that is the oldest known apparel trademark in the United States still in continuous use. (Complaint 

¶ 10 & Exs. A and B.) LS&Co. has used the Arcuate trademark continuously since 1873 in interstate 

commerce on jeans and later used it on other products as well, and owns a number of federal 

registrations for the mark. (Complaint ¶ 11.)

4. The Arcuate trademark is valid and protectable, and exclusively owned by LS&Co. 

(Complaint ¶ 12.) The Arcuate trademark is famous and recognized around the world and throughout the United States by consumers as signifying authentic, high quality LEVI’S

® products. (Id.)

5. The Arcuate trademark became famous prior to Defendant’s conduct that is the 

subject of the Complaint. (Id.)

6. Defendant, Dorsaz, with knowledge of LS&Co.’s trademarks, has manufactured, 

promoted, and sold garments under the brand “XELEMENT” that bear designs that are likely to 

cause confusion regarding the source of the products, or of an affiliation or sponsorship with 

LS&Co. or its products or the Arcuate trademark, as shown in Exhibit A to this Order. (Complaint 

¶¶ 14-16 & Ex. C.) The XELEMENT brand garments bear designs that are confusingly similar to 

LS&Co.’s marks. They compete with LS&Co.’s products, and are likely to erode substantial 

goodwill that LS&Co. has accumulated in its distinctive trademarks over many years.

III. Conclusions of Law

7. Once a defendant has defaulted, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint are 

accepted as true, and the defendant’s liability as framed by the complaint is established. See Adriana 

Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109 (1991).

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 2 of 12
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

[REVISED PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:18-cv-03240-WHO - 3 -

8. The Lanham Act prohibits the unauthorized use in commerce of “any reproduction, 

counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark” where such use is likely to cause 

confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). To prevail on its trademark 

infringement claims, LS&Co. must establish that (1) it owns valid and protectable trademarks, and 

(2) defendants’ use of similar designs creates a likelihood of confusion as to the origin or sponsorship of defendants’ goods. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir. 

1985).

9. The Lanham Act also renders Defendant liable for diluting LS&Co.’s mark if, “at 

any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, [it] commences use of a mark or trade name in 

commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, 

regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual 

economic injury.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

10. Dorsaz’s challenged products, examples of which are depicted in Exhibit A, infringe 

and dilute LS&Co.’s Arcuate trademark.

11. Dorsaz has received a minimum $26,751.67 in revenue attributable to sales of these 

infringing and diluting products. No evidence of costs to produce these revenues appears in the 

record.

12. Dorsaz acted willfully and in disregard of LS&Co.’s rights such that there is no 

equitable basis for limiting LS&Co.’s recovery of Dorsaz’s profits and establishing that this is an 

exceptional case for purposes of LS&Co.’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees. Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Brooks, 

No. 5:08-CV-04044 RMW, 2009 WL 593343, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2009).

13. The Lanham Act expressly authorizes courts to grant injunctions to remedy violations 

of a trademark owner’s rights. 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) (vesting the district court with the “power to 

grant injunctions, according to principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem 

reasonable, to prevent the violation of any right” of a trademark owner). “It is well established that 

courts can issue injunctions as part of default judgments.” China Cent. Television v. Create New 

Tech. (HK) Ltd., 2015 WL 12732432, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2015) (quoting Sony Music Entm’t, 

Inc. v. Elias, No. CV 03–6387 DT (RCx), 2004 WL 141959, *3 (C. D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2004)).

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 3 of 12
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

[REVISED PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:18-cv-03240-WHO - 4 -

14. Dorsaz’s actions have caused and, unless enjoined, will cause LS&Co. irreparable 

harm for which money damages are inadequate. (Complaint ¶¶ 18-19.) A permanent injunction 

is warranted where LS&Co. demonstrates (1) that it has suffered irreparable injury; (2) that there 

is no adequate remedy at law; (3) “that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff 

and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted”; and (4) that it is in the public’s interest to issue the 

injunction.

15. A permanent injunction is an appropriate remedy for the irreparable harm caused by 

continuous and ongoing trademark infringement. See, e.g., Sennheiser Elec. Corp. v. Eichler, 2013 

WL 3811775, at *10 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2013); China Cent. Television, 2015 WL 12732432, at *19. 

See Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. RealtyComp.com, No. C-14-4774 EMC, 2015 WL 1009660, at *5 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2015), where this Court granted a permanent injunction against a defaulting 

defendant because the infringing activity persisted, and because defendant competed directly with 

the plaintiff.

IV. Order of Judgment

16. Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered and adjudged as follows:

a. Defendant shall pay $26,751.67 in damages to LS&Co., plus $10,170.8300 in 

attorney’s fees and $400.00 in costs, totaling $37,322.50.

b. Commencing as of the “So Ordered” date of this Judgment and Permanent 

Injunction, Dorsaz, its principals, agents, affiliates, employees, officers, 

directors, servants, privies, successors, and assigns, and all persons acting in 

concert or participating with it or under its control who receive actual notice 

of this Order, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained, directly or 

indirectly, from doing, authorizing or procuring any persons to do any of the 

following until such time as this Order is dissolved or modified by further 

Court order:

i. Manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, 

promoting, or displaying any garment that displays any of the designs 

and/or designations illustrated in Exhibit A to this Order or any other 

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 4 of 12
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

[REVISED PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:18-cv-03240-WHO - 5 -

designation and/or design that is as similar to the Arcuate trademark as 

the designs shown in Exhibit A are to the identified trademarks 

(hereinafter collectively the “Prohibited Designs and Designations”);

ii. Licensing or assigning the Dorsaz or XELEMENT trademarks, or 

the assets or beneficial ownership or control of assets associated with 

the production of goods under the Dorsaz or XELEMENT trademarks, 

without disclosing and providing actual notice to the licensee, buyer,

or assignee of such trademarks or assets;

iii. Refusing refunds to any retailer, wholesaler, jobber, distributor, or 

other seller located in the United States or its territories which, upon 

receiving notice of this Injunction, returns products to Dorsaz bearing 

the Prohibited Designs and Designations;

iv. Assisting, aiding, or abetting any person or entity engaging in or 

performing any act prohibited by this paragraph.

c. This Injunction shall apply throughout the world to the fullest extent of this 

Court’s jurisdiction. This is a final judgment as to all claims asserted against 

Defendant in this action.

d. This Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of making any further orders 

necessary or proper for the construction or modification of this Judgment, the 

enforcement thereof, and/or the punishment for any violations thereof. If 

LS&Co. commences an action for enforcement of this Judgment, the prevailing 

party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from the other party.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 5 of 12
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

[REVISED PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Case No. 3:18-cv-03240-WHO - 6 -

17. For the purpose of any future proceeding to enforce the terms of this Judgment, service 

by certified or registered mail upon a party or their counsel of record at their last known address shall 

be deemed adequate notice for each party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2019

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 6 of 12
Exhibit A

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 7 of 12
Exhibit C‐1

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 8 of 12
Exhibit C‐2

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 9 of 12
Exhibit C‐3

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 10 of 12
Exhibit C‐4

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 11 of 12
Exhibit C‐5

Case 3:18-cv-03240-WHO Document 29 Filed 05/20/19 Page 12 of 12