Chanel, Inc. v. Kimberli Hunter et al
| Chanel, Inc. |
| Kimberli Hunter and Does |
| 2:2008cv02226 |
| April 3, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| XX US, Outside California |
| Victor B. Kenton |
| George H. King |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
16
FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King is ENTERED in favor of Chanel and against Defendant on all counts. Defendant's infringement and counterfeiting of Chanel's trademarks was malicious and willful. Defendant Kimberli Hunter a/k/a Kim For ks a/k/a Kim Eastland d/b/a GQ Bags d/b/a GQBags.com d/b/aUltimate Handbags d/b/a UltimateHandbags.com and her respective officers,agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of the forego ing who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise are hereby restrained and enjoined. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) statutory damages are awarded againstDefendant and in favor of Chanel in the amount of $210,000.00. Chanel is awarded court costs in the amount of $425.00. This Judgment shall accrue interest at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (See document for further details) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ir)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
