THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case No. C-09-1977 MMC
CHANEL, INC., a New York corporation
and LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER,
S.A., a foreign business entity,
SOPHIA XXXXX, YAN XXXXX and
DOES 1-10, individually and jointly, d/b/a
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANT YAN XXXXX IN CONTEMPT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’, Chanel, Inc., a New York corporation, ("Chanel") and Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., a foreign business entity (“Louis Vuitton”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Order Holding Defendant Yan XXXXX in Contempt. On December 7, 2009, this Court entered Final Default Judgment against XXXXX and in favor of Plaintiffs and issued a Permanent Injunction prohibiting XXXXX from committing further acts of infringement and unfair competition against Plaintiffs. (See Permanent Injunction (e-docket 28) and Final Default Judgment (e-docket 29)). On January 20, 2010 Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Yan XXXXX Should Not Be Held in Contempt and Sanctioned (the “Motion for Order to Show Cause) (e-docket 31) in connection with XXXXX’s violation of the Permanent Injunction in this matter through his operation of websites operating under the domain names 178bao.com, 22bag.com, aaahighreplica.com, angelpurse.com, b2csite.com, bags-replicas.com, bagsspace.com, canwatches.com, canwatches.net, clonereplicas.com, dig-in-china.com, ec55.com, eo21.com, hiendless.com, highreplicamall.com, honeyreplica.com, iamreplica.com, idolwholesale.com, mallwatches.com, mybagsroom.com, replicahot.com, scarves-wholesale.com, sonpa.com, sunglassfocus.com, top1-replica.com, watches9.com, watchesshow.com, wellwholesaler.com and woicha.com (collectively the “First New Domain Names”). Subsequent to the filing of their Motion for Order to Show Cause, the Plaintiffs discovered XXXXX’s further violation of the Permanent Injunction matter through his operation of websites operating under the additional domain names 20fashion.com, bagsdesigners.com, bagsstock.com, buy-tiffanys.com, chanel-design.com, chanel-luxury.com, chanel-mall.com, chaneltrend.com, cocoperfume.com, dearuggboots.com, ebagsell.com, guccitrend.com, hermes-luxury.com, high-replica-bags.com, highreplicamall8.com, hotreplicashop.com, idolreplica.net, lv-pifa.com, replica-handbags-biz.com, replica-handbags-focus.com, replica-handbags-shop.co.uk, replica-iwc-watches.com, replica-perfume.com, replica-swisswatches.com, replica-watches9.com, replica-watches-supplier.com, sight-focus.com, thermosmaker.com, top-replica-handbags.com, vogueunderwear.com, watcheshot.cc, watchesshow.co.uk, and wholewatches.net (the “Second New Domain Names”) and on February 23, 2010 the Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Filing Supplemental Evidence in Support of Motion for Order to Show Cause together with supporting evidence (e-docket 40-44).
On February 24, 2010 the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (e-docket 47) finding the Plaintiffs had met the standard for civil contempt in the Ninth Circuit, and requiring XXXXX to respond to the Order to Show Cause on or before April 2, 2010. On July 2, 2010, after determining that XXXXX was further violating the Permanent Injunction through the operation of the websites operating under the domain names 925silverangel.com, aonehandbags.com, all99dollars.com, apparel-supplier.com,besthandbagblog.com, chanelhandbagsmall.com, chanelvogue.com, designersbagblog.com, dotvv.net, exact-handbags.com, fashionwithbags.com, handbagsair.com, handbagsoul.com, handbagsspace.com, honeyreplicas.com, iamreplicas.com, justtopwatches.com,luxurybagsvendor.com, luxurybagvendor.com, mynike-shoes.com, nexthandbags.com,outletwatchessite.com, replicahandbags2010.com, replicaonsale.com, replica-shopping.com, replicastory.com, shopdreambag.com, shoponebag.com, showthebrand.com, sxja.org,thehandbagbuzz.com, top-brand-handbags.com, topfashionboutique.com, and watches-focus.com (the “Third Set of New Domain Names”), Plaintiffs filed their Second Notice of Filing Supplemental Evidence in Support of Motion for Order to Show Cause together with supporting evidence (e-docket 49-52). To date, XXXXX has not responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause as required.
Plaintiffs now seek an Order holding XXXXX in contempt for his failure to comply with the December 7, 2009 Permanent Injunction. (e-docket 28).
THE COURT has considered the motion and the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Accordingly, it is
ADJUDGED as follows:
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: November 5, 2010