This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Copyright Infringement
Design Patent Infringement

Amini Innovation Corporation v. Bank and Estate Liquidators Inc., Bel Furniture Inc., Bel Furniture I Inc., Bel Furniture II Inc., Bel Furniture III Inc., Bel Furniture IV Inc., Bel Furniture V Inc., Bel Furniture VI Inc., Bel Furniture VII Inc., Bel Furniture (Beaumont) Inc., Bel Furniture (Clearance) Inc., and Does 1 through 9, inclusive

Published: Aug. 9, 2014 | Result Date: Dec. 30, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:13-cv-07012-PSG-JEM Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel M. Cislo
(Cislo & Thomas LLP)

Mark D. Nielsen
(Cislo & Thomas LLP)


Defendant

Jeffrey F. Yee
(Greenberg Traurig)

Jacob E. Godard


Facts

Amini Innovation Corporation filed an infringement lawsuit against Bank and Estate Liquidators Inc., Bel Furniture Inc., Bel Furniture I Inc., Bel Furniture II Inc., Bel Furniture III Inc., Bel Furniture IV Inc., Bel Furniture V Inc., Bel Furniture VI Inc., Bel Furniture VII Inc., Bel Furniture (Beaumont) Inc., Bel Furniture (Clearance) Inc.

Plaintiff is a furniture designer and manufacturer located in Los Angeles. Defendants are related Texas corporations that sell furniture at the retail levels, including furniture purchased from plaintiff.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff accused defendants of selling counterfeit products. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for copyright infringement and design infringement.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that it had little or no contact with the state of California. As such, defendants argued that the case be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Result

The court agreed that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants. As such, it dismissed the lawsuit.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Sept. 20, 2013.


#116358

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390