Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Seiko Epson Corp. v. InkSystem LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 27, 2017

Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc., Plaintiffs,
v.
InkSystem LLC, et al., Defendants.

          Annie S. Wang Nevada Bar J. Andrew Coombs, Of Counsel 10792/CA SBN 243027, CA SBN 123881 (Admitted Pro Hoc Vice) Wang Law Corporation James D. Boyle Nevada Bar No. 08384 Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey & Thompson Attorneys for Plaintiffs Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc.

          AMENDED ORDER FOR ASSET SEIZURE AND IMPOUNDMENT

         The Court issued its Order for Asset Seizure and Impoundment against Defendants AF LLC, ART LLC, Inkredible LLC LLC, Andriy Kravchuk, Igor Bielov, Artem Koshkalda and Vitalii Maliuk on August 22, 2017, Docket No. 159.

         On October 10, 2017, the Court issued an Order setting a hearing on Plaintiffs Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc.'s (collectively "Plaintiffs") Emergency Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause re Contempt as to Artem Koshkalda and Vladimir Westbrook, Docket No. 155 ("Motion to Show Cause"), providing Defendant Koshkalda an extension to respond to the Motion to Show Cause and requiring Defendants Koshkalda and Westbrook's personal appearance before the Court on October 23, 2017 at 11:00 am. Docket No. 222. Defendant Koshkalda filed his response to the Motion to Show Cause on October 18, 2017, Docket No. 228, and Plaintiffs filed their Objections and Reply on October 20, 2017. Docket Nos. 229-230. Notice of the Hearing Location was also issued on October 20, 2017. Docket No, 227. Plaintiffs also served Notices of the October 10, 2017, Order, as well as the Notice of the Hearing Location on Defendants. Docket Nos, 234-235, 248. Despite notice of the October 10, 2017, Order, Defendants Koshkalda and Westbrook did not personally appear at the hearing on October 23, 2017 at 11;00 am, and therefore, the Court hereby finds Defendants Koshkalda and Westbrook in contempt of Court and AMENDS its Order for Asset Seizure and Impoundment as set forth herein as against Defendants Artem Koshkalda, ART LLC, and any other company owned or controlled by him ("Defendants"), as well as any individuals acting in concert with them, including Vladimir Slobodianiuk a/k/a Volodymyr Slobodianiuk a/k/a Vladimir Westbrook ("Westbrook"), having made the following findings:

         1. Plaintiffs have made a strong showing of success on the merits in showing that Defendants are using Plaintiffs' trademarks or marks confusingly similar to Plaintiffs' trademarks, including those attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Plaintiffs' Trademarks") in connection with the importation, manufacture, distribution, sale and offer for sale of counterfeit and/or infringing ink cartridges bearing unauthorized reproductions or substantially similar copies of registered trademarks owned by Plaintiffs ("Unauthorized Products").

         2. Defendants' discovery defaults further strengthen the conclusion of Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits.

         3. Plaintiffs have shown that proceeds from Defendants' infringement were deposited into a large number of bank accounts and also used to purchase valuable real estate, among other things, 4. Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants have and are likely to further liquidate or dissipate assets, that they have a history of transferring money to family members and using shell companies to hide assets or the source of money, and that they are a flight risk such that Plaintiffs will be unable to obtain an equitable accounting or recover Defendants' profits if the relief is not granted, 5. The Defendants' dissipation, secreting, and hiding of assets will result in immediate and irreparable injury to Plaintiffs if this relief is not ordered.

         6. The harm to Plaintiffs of denying the requested injunction outweighs the harm to the legitimate interest of Defendants from granting such order, 7. The public interest is served by entry of the present order to prevent Defendants from profiting from their infringement, 8. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over Plaintiffs and Defendants.

         9. Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants have access to funds outside of this Court's prior Temporary Restraining Order and Order for Asset Freeze and Impoundment and that Defendant Koshkalda, and others, have acted in violation and in willful contempt of those Orders despite service and actual notice of the Orders.

         10. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants, any person acting in concert with them, whether acting directly or through any entity, corporation, subsidiary, division, affiliate or other device, or any third-party service provider who is served with a copy of this Order, other than Inksystem LLC and Lucky Print LLC, or has knowledge of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are enjoined and restrained from:

         a. Transferring, converting, encumbering, selling, concealing, dissipating, disbursing, assigning, spending, withdrawing, perfecting a security interest in, or otherwise disposing of any funds, real or personal property, accounts, contracts, or other assets, wherever located, including outside the United States, including but in no way limited to those accounts and assets identified in Exhibit B, and for clarity, expressly excluding those of Inksystem LLC and Lucky Print LLC, that are:

i. owned or controlled by, or in the actual or constructive possession of any Defendant;
ii. owned or controlled by, or held for the benefit of, directly or indirectly, any Defendant, in whole or in part;
iii. owned or controlled by, or in the actual or constructive possession of or otherwise held for the benefit of, any corporation, partnership, or other entity directly or indirectly owned, managed, or controlled by any of the Defendants (including but not limited to Sancase LLC, Vilacet LLC, and Renoca LLC), including, but not limited to, any assets held by, for, or subject to access by, any of the Defendants at any bank or savings and loan institution, or with any broker-dealer, escrow agent, title company, or other financial institution or depository of any kind;
b. Opening or causing to be opened any new accounts or safe deposit boxes titled in the name of any Defendant, or subject to access by any Defendant, expressly excluding those ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.