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
Copyright Infringement

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions Inc., et al.

Published: Sep. 12, 2009 | Result Date: Aug. 28, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV 07-3952 JW Verdict –  $32,400,000

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

J. Andrew Coombs
(J. Andrew Coombs APC)

Frannie S. Mok-Wang


Defendant

James A. Lowe

Christopher Lai


Experts

Plaintiff

Michael S. Wilson
(technical)

Defendant

Richard Gralnik
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Louis Vuitton transmitted several abuse complaints concerning websites offering counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise on defendants' servers. Notifications were sent by defendant internet service providers (ISP) to defendants' wholesale customers and abuse sites disappeared, only to reappear later. After the lawsuit was filed, additional steps were taken to disable access to servers used by allegedly infringing websites, but sites would return on servers controlled by defendants, often through other wholesale customers, according to defense counsel.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps on a timely basis to remove infringing content and/or disable access to sites which were the subject of its notices.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defense contended that it did all it technically could do and was consistent with ISP industry standards. The defense further claimed that defendants were not responsible for actions of its customers based in China, and did not aid or cause or induce any infringing. The defendants also asserted a defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Result

Plaintiff's verdict. The jury found willful contributory trademark infringement of $700,000 for each of 15 trademarks infringed by each defendant. The jury also found willful contributory copyright infringement of $150,000 for each of two copyrights infringed by each defendant. The jury awarded plaintiff $32,400,000.

Other Information

Rule 50 motions are pending. FILING DATE: Aug. 1, 2007.

Deliberation

two days

Length

two weeks


#95488

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

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