Bravado International Group Merchandising Services Inc et al v. Nettillect Inc et al

Case Number: 2:2004cv02116
Filed: March 29, 2004
Court: California Central District Court
Presiding Judge: Ronald S.W. Lew
Referring Judge: Jennifer T. Lum
Nature of Suit: Trademark

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 11, 2015 59 Opinion or Order of the Court AMENDED PARTIAL JUDGMENT and PERMANENT INJUNCTION 56 by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew, in favor of plaintiffs Bravado International Group Merchandising Services Inc, Bravado International Group Limited and against defendants Peter Michailow a/k/a Pinhas Mi chailow, David Michailow and I Schwartz Inc, jointly and severally in the amount of $246,653.50, consisting of statutory damages of $48,750.00 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3344, punitive damage of $48,750.00 pursuant to Ca lifornia Civil Code Section 3344, treble profits of $49,153.50 with respect to the infringement of the trademarks of The Clash, The Cure, The Who, Sex Pistols and Morrissey, $100,000 in statutory damages pursuant to 15 USC 1117(c) in connection with the infringement of the Guns N Roses trademark plus attorneys fees pursuant to LR 55-3 and costs as assessed by the Clerks Office. NUNC PRO TUNC TO 8/10/2005. (jre)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bravado International Group Merchandising Services Inc et al v. Nettillect Inc et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?