Koninklijke Pe v. Kxd Technology

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 19, 200807-15310California2,950 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff-Appellee, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Philips”) sued the above-named defendants, alleging that they had infringed Philips’s registered trademark and had knowingly offered counterfeited Philips goods for sale in the United States. On January 5, 2006, the district court issued an amended temporary restraining and seizure order that was immediately served on the defendants at the Consumer Elec- tronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada. The following day, because defendants’ principal place of business and ware- house was in California, Philips sought and was granted a temporary restraining and seizure order by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. That order was served at defendants’ California warehouse, where the Marshals Service found and confiscated counterfeit products bearing the Philips trademark.

On March 14, 2006, the district court issued a preliminary injunction that principally enjoined defendants from dealing in any product that infringed Philips’s trademarks. The district court also ordered defendants to file a report setting forth their inventory of counterfeit Philips products by April 13, 2006 and a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.