Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Decision Mont Blanc Colibri

Decision Mont Blanc Colibri

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,541|Likes:
Published by mschwimmer
edny trademark trade dress montblanc colibri
edny trademark trade dress montblanc colibri

More info:

Published by: mschwimmer on Sep 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK----------------------------------xMONTBLANC-SIMPLO GMBH, et al.,Plaintiffs,
 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 -against- 07-CV-5422 (KAM)(RLM)COLIBRI CORPORATION, et al.,Defendants.----------------------------------xKIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion forreconsideration of this court’s Permanent Injunction enteredMarch 18, 2010, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.3 of this court. (SeeDoc. No. 49, Not. of Mot. for Reconsideration; Doc. No. 50, Mem.of Law in Supp. of Request for Reconsideration (“Recons. Mem.”);Doc. No. 47, Permanent Inj.) For the foregoing reasons,plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is denied.
BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2007, plaintiffs Montblanc-SimploGmbH, Montblanc North America, LLC, Cartier International, N.V.and Panerai, a division of Richemont N.A., Inc. (collectively,“plaintiffs”) brought suit against defendants ColibriCorporation and The Colibri Group, Inc. (collectively,“defendant”) for trademark, trade dress and copyrightinfringement, alleging that defendant manufactured, offered for
 
2
 
sale, sold, and distributed items bearing the trade dress orcopyrighted designs of plaintiffs’ Starwalker and PaneraiLuminor product lines. (Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 1, 33.) OnJanuary 21, 2009, in the midst of discovery, defendant’s counselinformed the court that his client could not participate indiscovery because it had been placed into involuntaryreceivership in state court. (Doc. No. 23, 1/21/09 Letter.)Thereafter, plaintiffs moved for an entry of default againstdefendant, including injunctive relief (Doc. No. 29, 3/3/09Letter; Doc. No. 33, Mot. for Entry of Default J.), and thereceiver confirmed that it would not be defending the action.(Doc No. 30, 3/04/09 Minute Entry; Doc. No. 36, 11/17/09Letter.) The motion for default judgment and for a permanentinjunction was referred to Magistrate Judge Mann for a Reportand Recommendation. (10/26/09 Order.)On January 19, 2010, based on the undisputedallegations in the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Mann issued aReport and Recommendation, recommending that default judgment beentered against defendant for infringement of plaintiffs’Starwalker pen trade dress rights and that defendant bepermanently enjoined from infringing plaintiffs’ Starwalker pentrade dress rights.
1
(Doc. No. 42, Report and Recommendation (“R
1
The Report and Recommendation also discussed trade dress infringement withregard to Panerai Luminor watches, as well as copyright and trademarkinfringement claims. Because plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration solely
 
3
 
& R”) at 2, 10-14, 18-21.) This recommendation was based on,
inter alia
, Magistrate Judge Mann’s finding that the plaintiffshave a protectable trade dress right in the “combination of allor almost all” of four elements, which together give theStarwalker pen “a distinct overall look and commercialimpression,”
2
and based on the undisputed allegations that: (1)defendant “manufactured, sold, offered for sale and distributedpens . . . bearing . . . the [Starwalker] trade dress . . . or acolorable imitation thereof;” (2) in connection with the sale ofthese goods, defendant falsely represented that the goodsoffered were duly authorized and licensed by plaintiffs; and (3)defendant’s use of colorable imitations of the Starwalker tradedress created a likelihood that consumers would be confused ordeceived into believing that the imitations were plaintiffs’products, or sponsored or approved by plaintiffs. (R & R at 4;
addresses infringement of the Starwalker pen trade dress, the other claimswill only be discussed to the extent relevant to the instant motion.
2
 
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged, and Magistrate Judge Mann accepted, that a“combination of all or almost all” of the following four elements comprisedthe Starwalker trade dress:
 
a) a body, the upper portion of which has a uniform radius and thelower portion of which has a bulging out in radius and then a taperingdown to a point;b) a translucent, rounded dome at the top of the pen;c) a grid design consisting of small rectangular areas laid outaround the entire length of the pen of steel-colored edges and blackbackground, with the long edges of the rectangular area laid along thelength of the pen;d) at around the mid-point of the length of the lower bulgingportion of the pen there is a triple-band design in steel-colored metalaround the circumference of the pen with the band in the middle beingthicker than the bands above and below it.(Compl. ¶ 10;
see also
Doc. No. 45, Proposed Permanent Inj. at 1.)
 

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Betsy Combier liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->