Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07868/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07868-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-7868 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT IN PART AND

M-PLUS INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INC., a California Corporation, et al., IN PART

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, for summary

adjudication, came on for hearing before this court on November 28, 2007. Plaintiff

Symantec Corporation (“plaintiff”), appeared through its counsel, Henry H. Gonzalez. 

Defendants M-Plus International Technology, Inc., Microplus International Tech., M-Plus

Group, Austin International Express, and Simon P. Yu (collectively ”defendants”), appeared

through their counsel, Andrew K. Jacobson. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the

court hereby DENIES summary judgment in part and GRANTS summary judgment in part,

for the reasons stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows. 

1. Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to plaintiffs’ first, second, and

third claims for relief, as defendants have conceded liability for (1) trademark infringement

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; (2) false designation of origin in violation of the

Lanham Act § 43(a); and (3) copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501. 

2. Summary judgment is DENIED with respect to plaintiffs’ argument that

defendant Yu should be held personally liable for the conceded infringing activities. The

court finds that there are material disputes of fact that must be resolved with respect to

Case 4:06-cv-07868-PJH Document 38 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defendant Yu’s personal involvement in authorizing and directing actual infringement, such

that personal liability should attach. Moreover, plaintiff’s argument that personal liability

attaches via application of strict liability principles is insufficiently developed to warrant

summary judgment on this ground. 

3. The court GRANTS summary judgment on the issue of damages, but only to

the extent that plaintiff seeks a judgment establishing that plaintiff is entitled to profits,

damages, and costs for trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, and to

profits and damages for copyright infringement, per 17 U.S.C. § 504. To the extent,

however, that plaintiff seeks a judgment that (a) it is entitled to treble damages, attorney’s

fees, and/or enhanced damages based on willful infringement for both trademark and

copyright infringement, or (b) that it is entitled to damages and profits pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 2318(f)(3), summary judgment is DENIED. The court finds that material disputes of fact

exist with respect to willfulness and/or the intentional nature of defendant Yu’s conduct. 

In sum, therefore, the only issues that remain for trial are as follows: liability and

damages in connection with plaintiff’s fourth through tenth claims for relief; defendant Yu’s

personal liability for infringement; and proof of damages, as set forth above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07868-PJH Document 38 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 2