Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03650/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03650-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Intel Corporation
Plaintiff
Intelagents, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

1 STIPULATED INJUNCTION

Case No. C 07-03650 EDL

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

Lisa M. Martens (SBN 195824)

Gregory M. Krakau (SBN 248607)

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

12390 El Camino Real

San Diego, California 92130

Telephone: (858) 678-5070

Facsimile: (858) 678-5099

Attorneys for Plaintiff

INTEL CORPORATION

George Gottlieb, Esq.

GOTTLIEB, RACKMAN & REISMAN, P.C.

270 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10016-0601

Attorneys for Defendant

INTELAGENTS, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

INTEL CORPORATION,

a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTELAGENTS, LLC,

a Maryland limited liability company,

Defendant.

Case No. C 07-03650 EDL

STIPULATED INJUNCTION

Plaintiff Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint against Defendant

IntelAgents, LLC (“Defendant”) on July 16, 2007. The Complaint asserted claims against

Defendant for trademark infringement, trade name infringement, false designation of origin, unfair

competition, cybersquatting, and trademark dilution under federal and California law.

Having consulted with counsel, Defendant now agrees to this Stipulated Injunction, to its

prompt entry by the Court, and to each and every provision, order, and decree therein.

Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 1 of 7 Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 10 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 6
2 STIPULATED INJUNCTION

Case No. C 07-03650 EDL

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

NOW THEREFORE, upon consent of the parties hereto, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED THAT:

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1338 as the claims arise under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. This Court

has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(b) and

1367. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties hereto. Venue is proper in this District

under 28 U.S.C. §1391.

2. Intel is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the trademark and

trade name INTEL and numerous INTEL-based trademarks and trade names in connection with

the manufacture, promotion and sale of a wide range of computer, communications, educational,

and consumer electronics products and services, including but not limited to U.S. Trademark

Registration Nos. 914,978; 938,772; 939,641; 1,022,563; 1,573,324; 1,723,243; 1,725,692;

2,171,778; 2,194,121; 2,251,962; 2,251,961; 2,250,491; 2,254,525; 2,261,531; 2,276,580;

2,446,693; 2,462,327; 2,585,551; 2,742,174; 3,029,954; 3,136,102; and 3,173,391 (collectively the

“INTEL Marks”). Intel’s federal registrations are valid, enforceable, and subsisting. Plaintiff’s

INTEL Marks are famous, valid and enforceable.

3. Long after Intel commenced use of the INTEL Marks, Defendant began using the

trademark, trade name, and/or corporate name INTELAGENTS in connection with the offering

and performance of professional investigative and consulting services in this judicial district.

Defendant also registered the domain name <http://www.intelagents.net> and used the domain to

market its professional investigative and consulting services.

4. Defendant acknowledges that a trier of fact may determine that its use of the name

and mark INTELAGENTS and/or the domain name <http://www.intelagents.net> constitutes

trademark infringement, trade name infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition,

Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 2 of 7 Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 10 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 6
3 STIPULATED INJUNCTION

Case No. C 07-03650 EDL

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

cybersquatting, and/or trademark dilution under federal and California law, in violation of Intel’s

rights in the INTEL Marks and the above-identified registrations. Without admitting any liability

or infringement, but in an effort in good faith to resolve this dispute, Defendant has agreed to

cease all use of the name and mark INTELAGENTS, as well as the domain name

<http://www.intelagents.net> on or prior to February 15, 2008.

5. As of February 15, 2008, Defendant and its officers, directors, owners, agents,

servants, representatives, employees, assigns and successors, and all persons in active concert or

participation with Defendant, shall be and are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from all

of the following:

a. Doing business under the name “IntelAgents, LLC,” or any other name

containing a word that is phonetically equivalent or confusingly similar to the word “INTEL”;

b. Using in any manner the INTEL mark, or any other name, mark or domain

name that wholly incorporates the INTEL mark or is confusingly similar to or a colorable

imitation of this mark, including without limitation the INTELAGENTS name and mark, alone or

in combination with other words or designs, as a trademark, trade name component, domain name

or otherwise, to market, advertise, or identify products and services not produced or authorized by

Intel;

c. Doing any act or thing calculated or likely to cause confusion or mistake in

the minds of members of the public, or prospective customers of Intel’s products, as to the source

of the products or services offered, distributed or sold by Defendant, or likely to deceive members

of the public or prospective customers into believing that there is some connection between

Defendant and Intel;

d. Otherwise infringing Plaintiff’s INTEL Marks;

Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 3 of 7 Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 10 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 6
4 STIPULATED INJUNCTION

Case No. C 07-03650 EDL

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

e. Causing likelihood of confusion, injury to business reputation, or dilution of

the distinctiveness of Plaintiff’s INTEL Marks;

f. Renewing or obtaining any telephone directory listings, telephone directory

advertisements, or Internet listings or websites or domain names that incorporate the word

“INTEL,” or any other word that is phonetically equivalent or confusingly similar to the word

“INTEL”;

g. Answering the telephone by using the name “INTELAGENTS,” or any

other name that is phonetically equivalent or confusingly similar to the word “INTEL”;

h. Committing any other act or making any other statement that infringes

Intel’s trademarks or constitutes an act of trademark infringement or trademark dilution under

federal law, state law, or common law by using the words INTEL,” “INTELL,” or any other word

that is phonetically equivalent or confusingly similar to the word “INTEL”; and

i. Committing any acts that will tarnish, blur or dilute, or have the tendency to

tarnish, blur or dilute, the distinctive quality of the famous INTEL mark

6. Defendant represents and warrants that it will, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118,

deliver up for destruction, or show proof of said destruction or sufficient modification to eliminate

all articles, packages, wrappers, products, displays, labels, signs, circulars, kits, packaging,

letterheads, business cards, literature, materials, receptacles and any other matter in the possession,

custody, or under the control of Defendant or its agents or distributors bearing the INTEL mark in

any form or manner whatsoever, or any mark that is confusingly similar to or a colorable imitation

of the INTEL mark (including, without limitation, the INTELAGENTS mark and trade name and

the <http://www.intelagents.net> domain name), both alone and in combination with other words

or terms, and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means of making the same, on or prior to

February 28, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 4 of 7 Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 10 Filed 09/18/07 Page 4 of 6
5 STIPULATED INJUNCTION

Case No. C 07-03650 EDL

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

7. Defendant, pursuant to section 34(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), shall

file with this Court and serve upon Intel on or prior to February 28, 2008, a report in writing

under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendant has complied with the

terms of this Order and implemented adequate and effective means to either discontinue doing

business and/or discontinue offering or selling goods or services bearing the INTELAGENTS

mark and trade name and the <http://www.intelagents.net> domain name. In the event that

Defendant fails to file such a report with the Court on or prior to February 28, 2008, Intel agrees to

provide written notice to Defendant that it is in violation of this Stipulated Injunction. If

Defendant fails to cure the violation and file and serve the report described herein within ten (10)

days of receiving such notice (time being of the essence), Intel may notify the court, and

Defendant shall be liable for and pay to Intel its reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with the

enforcement by the Court of this Stipulated Injunction.

8. Each party shall pay its own attorneys’ fees and costs that have accrued on or

before the execution of this Stipulated Injunction. Intel waives its right to recover its lost profits

and/or damages, but only if Defendant does not materially breach the terms of this Stipulated

Injunction.

9. If Defendant breaches any term of this Stipulated Injunction, Defendant shall be

liable for and pay to Intel its reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with any future enforcement

by the Court of this Stipulated Injunction.

10. This Court retains jurisdiction over this Stipulated Injunction and any applications

with regard to enforcement of it shall be directed to this Court.

Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 5 of 7 Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 10 Filed 09/18/07 Page 5 of 6
6 STIPULATED INJUNCTION

Case No. C 07-03650 EDL

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

Dated: September 12, 2007 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ Lisa M. Martens

Lisa M. Martens

Gregory M. Krakau

Attorneys for Plaintiff

INTEL CORPORATION

Dated: September 12, 2007 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ George Gottlieb

George Gottlieb, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants

INTELAGENTS, LLC,

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under

penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from George

Gottlieb.

Dated: September 12, 2007 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ Lisa M. Martens

Lisa M. Martens

Gregory M. Krakau

Attorneys for Plaintiff

INTEL CORPORATION

SO ORDERED this ___ day of __________________, 2007

Elizabeth D. Laporte, Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 7 Filed 09/12/2007 Page 6 of 7

18th September

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:07-cv-03650-EDL Document 10 Filed 09/18/07 Page 6 of 6