Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01085/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01085-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-1085 PJH

v. ORDER ADOPTING 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT

GARY TILLEY, et al., AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

___________________________________/

The court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Spero's report and recommendation re

plaintiff Adobe Systems, Inc.’s motion for default judgment. Defendants Gary Tilley and

Denise Black filed no opposition to the report. The court finds the report correct, wellreasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the motion for default

judgment is GRANTED.

Judgment shall be entered in favor of Adobe Systems, Inc., and against defendants

Gary Tilley and Denise Black in the sum of $50,000, plus post-judgment interest at the rate

of 0.35%. 

In addition, defendants Gary Tilley and Denise Black, and their agents, servants,

employees and all persons in active concert and participation with them who receive actual

notice of the injunction are hereby restrained and enjoined from

a) infringing Plaintiff’s Copyrights and Trademarks, either directly or

contributorily, in any manner, including generally, but not limited to manufacturing,

importing, distributing, advertising, selling and/or offering for sale any merchandise which

Case 4:09-cv-01085-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

features any of plaintiff’s copyrights and trademarks, and, specifically, importing,

manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling and/or offering for sale the counterfeit

product or any other unauthorized products which picture, reproduce, copy or use the

likenesses of or bear a substantial similarity to any of plaintiff’s copyrights and trademarks;

b) importing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling and/or offering

for sale in connection thereto any unauthorized promotional materials, labels, packaging or

containers which picture, reproduce, copy or use the likenesses of or bear a confusing

similarity to any of plaintiff’s copyrights and trademarks;

c) engaging in any conduct that tends falsely to represent that, or is likely to

confuse, mislead or deceive purchasers, the defendants’ customers and/or members of the

public to believe, the actions of defendants, the products sold by defendants, or the

defendants themselves are connected with plaintiff, are sponsored, approved or licensed

by plaintiff, or are affiliated with plaintiff; 

d) affixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the importation,

manufacture, distribution, advertising, sale and/or offer for sale or other use of any goods

or services, a false description or representation, including words or other symbols, tending

to falsely describe or represent such goods as being those of plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2010

_________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-01085-PJH Document 33 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2