United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs,
SOURCE II, INC. and CERHUE ANDRE WALKER, individually and d/b/a SOURCE II, INC., Defendants. Registration No. Mark Classes Date of Registration Image
JUDGEMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
consideration of Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services,
Inc.'s (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Summary
Judgment and Supplemental Briefing Regarding Plaintiffs'
Election of Statutory Damages against Defendants Source II,
Inc. (“Source II”) and Cerhue Andre
Walker, individually and d/b/a Source II, Inc.
(“Walker”) (hereinafter collectively referred to
as “Defendants”), having granted
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and having heard
the evidence before it and having considered this case's
docket, pleadings, exhibits, and memoranda filed, this Court
hereby states and finds as follows:
1. Defendant Walker is the sole member and owner of Defendant
Source II, which operates a clothing and accessory store, The
2. On December 4, 2014, law enforcement officials executed a
search warrant at the Source Apparel and seized thousands of
counterfeit handbags, wallets, and accessories worth
approximately $1, 671, 040. Four counterfeit Coach purses
were among the products seized. An investigator for Coach
examined the purses and concluded they were counterfeit.
3. Prior to that, on February 21, 2014, Defendants sold to a
confidential informant twenty-eight items, including a Coach
wallet, which was determined to be counterfeit.
4. Defendants' entire course of conduct demonstrates
willfulness. Undisputed evidence in the record shows that
Defendants' superficially legitimate business was merely
a front - Defendants' store concealed a hidden backroom
where Defendants traded in counterfeit products. Defendants
have not disputed the existence of or their involvement in
this illicit enterprise. Defendants' willfulness is
further evidenced by the scale of their illegitimate
business. The Court can scarcely conceive of stronger
evidence of willful infringement than Defendants'
underhanded efforts to illegally acquire, quietly transport,
display out of easy sight in the “back room, ”
and offer for sale what amount to - literally - a small
fortune in counterfeit goods.
5. Defendants are not licensed or otherwise authorized to use
6. Defendants infringed on the Coach Trademarks at issue in
this action and are liable for federal trademark infringement
and counterfeiting (15 U.S.C. § 1114), false
designations of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), and
violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Mich.
Comp. Laws § 445.903(1)).
7. Coach has shown a tangible risk of irreparable harm and
that it will lack an adequate legal remedy if this Permanent
Injunction is not entered. The Lanham Act authorizes courts
to grant injunctions “under principals of equity and
upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable” to
prevent future infringement;
8. Weighing the equities favors Coach's requested relief;
9. It is in the public interest that the Court enter a
Permanent Injunction; and
10. Defendants do not contest the suitability of entry of a
Permanent Injunction in this case.
IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that a Permanent
Injunction is entered against Defendants pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, forever enjoining the Defendants, their
respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys and ...