Mag Instrument Inc v. Vinsy Technology Limited
Plaintiff: Mag Instrument Inc
Defendant: Vinsy Technology Limited
Case Number: 5:2013cv00359
Filed: February 27, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Audrey B. Collins
Presiding Judge: Oswald Parada
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
December 9, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 72 CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge Andre Birotte, Jr in favor of Mag Instrument Inc against Vinsy Technology Limited Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 71 . That Mag Instrument, pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the January 18, 1996 Settlement Agreement betwe en Mag Instrument, Inc. and MAG Technology Co., Ltd. is the "prevailing party" and shall be awarded its attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with the above-captioned action in the amount of Eighty Thousand U.S. Dollars ($80,000.00), which shall be paid by Vinsy Technology, Limited to Mag Instrument, Inc. not later than December 21, 2014. See document for details. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (smo)
June 25, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER GRANTING MAG INSTRUMENT, INC'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed by Judge Audrey B. Collins: RE: against Defendant Vinsy Technology Limited. NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT. Plaintiff Mag Instrument, Inc. 9;s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment having been considered by this Court, and good cause having been show, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. That defendant Vinsy Technology Limited, as MAG Technology Co.,Ltd.'s assignee, has breached, and continues to breach, the January 18, 1996 Settlement Agreement between Mag Instrument, Inc. and MAG Technology Co., Ltd. (as modified, on March 7, 1996, to apply in all countries throughout the world) by its maintenance of United States Tradema rk Registration No. 3,500,264 and its use of the mark MAG (stylized) and all other marks that contain the term "MAG" or any confusingly similar mark in connection.... 6. That United States Trademark Registration No. 3,500,264 is cancelled with prejudice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1119 and this Court has certifies its decree of cancellation with prejudice to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 7. That Mag Instrument, pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Jan uary 18, 1996 Settlement Agreement between Mag Instrument, Inc. and MAG Technology Co., Ltd. (as modified, on March 7, 1996, to apply in all countries throughout the world) is the "prevailing party" and shall be awarded its attorney fees' and expenses incurred in connection with the above-captioned action. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (lw)
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: Mag Instrument Inc v. Vinsy Technology Limited
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Vinsy Technology Limited
Represented By: Bin Li
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mag Instrument Inc
Represented By: Jerrold B Reilly
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?