1

ORDER AND JUDGMENT CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00291-HSG

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

RADOSLOVICH | SHAPIRO, PC

Frank M. Radoslovich, SBN 161457

Email: frank@radshap.com

701 University Avenue, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: (916) 565-8161

Facsimile: (916) 565-8170

Attorney for Plaintiff Vietnam Reform Party

(a/k/a/ Việt Nam Canh Tân Cách Mạng Ðảng

or Viet Tan), an unincorporated association

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIETNAM REFORM PARTY (a/k/a/ Việt 

Nam Canh Tân Cách Mạng Ðảng or Viet Tan), 

an unincorporated association, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

VIET TAN - VIETNAM REFORM PARTY, a 

California nonprofit corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 4:17-CV-00291-HSG 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of a Default 

Judgment against Defendants, Michelle Duong (“Duong”) and Viet Tan – Vietnam Reform Party, 

a California corporation (“VT Corp”) (collectively, “Defendants”), under Rule 55(b)(2) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 86). 

On August 26, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Default Judgment. (Dkt. No. 90). On September 4, 2019, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to 

show cause why the remaining claims in this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

(Dkt. No. 91). On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel advised the Court that Plaintiff will 

dismiss all remaining claims. (See Dkt. No. 95). On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed all

remaining claims against Defendant Duong. (Dkt. No. 96). On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff 

dismissed its trademark dilution claim against all Defendants without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 103). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds as follows:
2

ORDER AND JUDGMENT CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00291-HSG

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

1. Defendant Duong in not a minor, incompetent person, nor member of the military

service of the United States;

2. Defendant Duong did not appear or otherwise defend in this action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

As to Defendant VT Corp, the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is GRANTED for 

its trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act and California common law, and unfair 

competition claims under California Business & Professions Code, section 17200, et seq. and 

California common law; it is

FURTHER GRANTED that Plaintiff’s Request for Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiff 

owns the trademarks “Vietnam Reform Party,” “Việt Nam Canh Tân Cách Mạng Ðảng,” “Việt

Tân”, and “Viet Tan,” and Defendants have infringed on Plaintiff’s rights to those Marks. The 

Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Permanent Injunction, consistent with the language 

below: 

Defendant VT Corp, and all its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and 

all those in active concert or participation with any of them, ARE PERMANENTLY 

RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED FROM:

1. Using “Vietnam Reform Party,” “Việt Nam Canh Tân Cách Mạng Ðảng,”

“Việt Tân”, and “Viet Tan,” (collectively “the Marks”), or any confusingly

similar version or variation of the Marks, in any jurisdiction in the United

States, except to refer to Plaintiff.

2. Representing to any media, person, entity, or the public that Defendant has any

rights to the Marks.

a. For purposes of the injunction, the term “person” shall be defined as

set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1127, which includes, but is not limited to,

Plaintiff’s members, the media, or any other person.

3. Sending cease-and-desist-letters, or any other communication as defined in 18

U.S.C. § 2510, asserting any right to preclude others, including but not limited

to plaintiff, from using the Marks.
3

ORDER AND JUDGMENT CASE NO. 4:17-CV-00291-HSG

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

Upon a showing made to this Court, Plaintiff is entitled to a Judgment against said 

Defendant for reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost incurred in prosecution of this action. Plaintiff 

shall submit evidence of its reasonable attorneys’ fees within 14 days of the date of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/30/2019 ____________________________ 

United States District Court Judge