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
Trademark Infringement
Misappropriation

Opulent Treasures Inc. v. Portofino International Trading USA Inc., et al.

Published: Jan. 27, 2023 | Result Date: Nov. 2, 2022 | Filing Date: Aug. 9, 2021 |

Case number: 2:22-cv-03031-SPG-PVC Settlement –  Permanent Injunction

Judge

Sherilyn P. Garnett

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Eric John Knudsen
(Brozynski & Dalton PC )

Bartholomew P. Dalton
(Brozynski & Dalton PC )


Defendant

Clay M. White
(White Shaver, PC)

Adam B. Allen
(White Shaver, PC)

Kevin R. Lussier
(Cruser Mitchell Novitz Sanchez Gaston & Zimet LLP)

Colleen Downes
(Cruser Mitchell Novitz Sanchez Gaston & Zimet LLP)

Kirstie M. Simmerman
(Gordon & Rees LLP)


Facts

Opulent Treasures, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in El Segundo. Opulent Treasures is engaged in the marketing, distribution, and sale of home décor items.

Portofino International Trading Group, Inc., Portofino International Trading, USA, Inc., and Daggo Trading, Inc., were all California corporations with their principal place of business located at the same address in Commerce, California, but all three corporations were dissolved. Portofino, Portofino USA, and Daggo were all also engaged in the marketing, distribution, and sale of home décor items.

On August 10, 2021, Opulent Treasures filed suit against Portofino, Portofino USA, and Daggo in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging trademark infringement. On December 30, 2021, Opulent Treasures files an amended complaint, but two weeks later, Portofino, Portofino USA, and Daggo filed a motion to change the venue to the Central District of California, which the court granted.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that it held registered and unregistered trademark and trade dress rights in a number of home décor items that it marketed, distributed, and sold; that the defendants also marketed, distributed, and sold home décor items; that the defendants marketed and sold numerous products that misappropriated, infringed, and diluted plaintiff's trademark and trade dress rights; that the defendants' conduct had harmed and continued to harm plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiff's material allegations.

Result

The parties entered into an agreed permanent injunction wherein the defendants agreed to permanently cease selling, distributing, reselling, advertising, marketing, and promoting any of plaintiff's designs or products.


#140104

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

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