Symantec Corporation v. Mann

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case

6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35 _ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 15

“FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

co

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

AUTHENTICATED aw
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIVERSIDE DIVISION
In re: ) Case No. 6:08-bk-11363-PC
)
CALVIN KWONG MANN, ) Adversary No. 6:08-ap-01178-PC
)
Debtor. )
) Chapter 7
)
SYMANTEC CORPORATION, )
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ,) Date: March 31, 2009
) Time: 9:30 a.m.
CALVIN KWONG MANN, ) Place: United States Bankruptcy Court
) Courtroom # 304
) 3240 Twelfth Street
Defendant. ) Riverside, CA 92501
)

Plaintiff, Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) seeks a summary judgment against
Defendant, Calvin Kwong Mann (“Mann”) determining that Mann’s debt to Symantec is
nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court, having considered the pleadings,
evidentiary record, and arguments of counsel, makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law! pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1), as incorporated into FRBP 7052 and applied

to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy cases,

” The court also adopts and incorporates by reference into this Memorandum Decision the
Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law in Support of Symantec
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment, except Conclusion of Law No. 145. To the extent
that any finding of fact is construed to be a conclusion of law, it is hereby adopted as such. To
the extent that any conclusion of law is construed to be a finding of fact, it is hereby adopted as
such.

“4

Cas4

we)

a HR we

10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
26
27

6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35 _ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 15

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Symantec designs, manufactures, publishes, and distributes software including Norton
System Works, Norton Antivirus, Norton Utilities, pcAnywhere, Norton Ghost, WinFax PRO,
Partition Magic, and Norton Internet Security. It owns a registered trademark for each of these
products. Symantec owns registered copyrights for Norton Antivirus, Norton Utilities, Norton
Internet Security, NortonGhost, and CleanSweep. Symantec contracts with a third-party,
DisCopy Laboratories (“DCL”) to manufacture the software. DCL ensures that all products are
produced to Symantec’s standards. Symantec sells its software only to authorized dealers, and
produces software to be included with new computers as “original equipment manufacturer” or
“OQEM” disks. OEM disks are sold only to vendors and not to retail customers. Symantec’s
software contains certain characteristics that are not present in unauthorized replications of the
software. If the software does not contain these characteristics, the software is not authorized by
Symantec and is counterfeit.

Mann, who has also used the name Calvin Chik, operated a fictitious business entity
known as Rowcal Distribution. Mann was in charge of ordering all Symantec software for the
business. Mann’s suppliers were Ted Wu (“Wu”) and Lily Zheng (“Zheng”), who operated Hi-
Tech Computer Services and Tedly Electronics, LLC. Mann advertised, marketed, and sold
Symantec software primarily on the website www.rowcal.com. Mann purchased counterfeit
copies of Symantec’s proprietary works. Each disk obtained by Mann contained unauthorized
copies of Symantec’s copyrighted material. Mann admits that he was banned from selling
Symantec products on eBay. Mann testified by deposition that he remembered clearly not being
able to sell Symantec software on eBay because he was banned. On March 24, 2005, Mann was
visited by William R. Baird (“Baird”), a Symantec employee, who informed Mann that the
products that he was selling were counterfeit. Mann turned over 45 CDs to Baird on March 24,
2005. Each of these disks bore one or more of Symantec’s registered trademarks. Each of these

disks were determined by Symantec to be counterfeit and made to look exactly like authorized

-2-

Case 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35_ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc

Oo ff ~~) SH

10
11
12
13
i4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Main Document Page 3 of 15

products of Symantec. On March 25, 2005, Symantec sent a letter to Mann informing him that
he was selling counterfeit Symantec products and demanding that he immediately cease and
desist from further sales of counterfeit software. Mann stopped selling the counterfeit Symantec
software products for a few days, but then resumed marketing the counterfeit software for
approximately a year. Mann did not contact Symantec to confirm whether the software he was
continuing to sell was authentic. On June 21, 2005, Symantec sent written notice to Tedley
Computer, Hi-Tech Computer Services, Tedley Electronics, LLC, Wu, and Zheng informing
them that they were selling counterfeit copies of Symantec software products. Symantec’s
written demand that they cease and desist from doing so was ignored.

On January 29, 2007, Symantec filed a Complaint against Mann, Rowcal Distribution,
and other non-debtor third-parties in Case No. 07-00676 -ODW (FFMx), styled Symantec

Corporation v. Mann, ef al., in the United States District Court, Central District of California,

seeking damages for alleged 1) trademark infringement; 2) false designation of origin under the
Lanham Act; 3) copyright infringement; 4) fraud; 5) trafficking in counterfeit labels,
documentation and/or packaging in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2318; 6) unfair competition; 7)
common law unfair competition; 8) state law false advertising; 9) intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage; and 10) negligent interference with prospective economic
advantage. A default judgment was entered against the non-debtor defendants.

On February 29, 2008, Mann filed a voluntary petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code.? Mann received a discharge on May 28, 2008, and the case was closed as a “no-asset”
case on June 12, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, Symantec timely filed its complaint in this adversary proceeding

7 Unless otherwise indicated, all “Code,” “chapter” and “section” references are to the
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1330 after its amendment by the Bankruptcy Abuse and
Consumer Prevention Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005). “Rule” references are to
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“F.R.Civ.P.”), which make applicable certain
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRBP”).

-3-

Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

p 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35 Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 4of15

seeking a determination that Mann’s debt to Symantec is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§
523(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6). Mann filed an answer to Symantec’s complaint on August 18, 2008.
On January 13, 2009, Symantec moved for summary judgment on its cause of action under 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). On February 3, 2009, Mann filed his response in opposition to the motion.
Symantec filed its reply to Mann’s opposition on February 12, 2009. After a hearing on March
31, 2009, the matter was taken under submission.
IL DISCUSSION

This court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
157(b) and 1334(b). This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2}(A), (I), and
(QO). Venue is appropriate in this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a). To prevail under 11 U.S.C. §
523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), or (a)(6), the plaintiff must establish the allegations of the complaint by a

preponderance of the evidence. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 291 (1991). Objections to the

dischargeability of a debt are to be literally and strictly construed against the objector and

liberally construed in favor of the debtor. Quarre v. Saylor (In re Saylor), 108 F.3d 219, 221 (9th

Cir. 1997).
A. Summary Judgment Standard.

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “The purpose of
summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the [material]

facts before the court.”” Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th

Cir. 1994). Under Rule 56(c), the moving party bears the initial burden to establish that there are

no genuine issues of material fact to be decided at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). “A ‘material fact’

is one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect the

outcome of the suit. The materiality of a fact is thus determined by the substantive law

-4-

Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Pp 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35_ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 5of15

governing the claim or defense.” T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626,

630 (9th Cir. 1987). Genuine issues of material fact are those “factual issues that make a
difference to the potential outcome and ‘that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact

because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.’” Svob. v. Bryan (In re Bryan),

261 B.R. 240, 243 (9th Cir. BAP 2001) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250). If the movant
bears the burden of persuasion, the motion must be supported by evidence establishing the

existence of each and every element essential to its case. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 869 (1995).
The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to produce “significantly probative
evidence” of specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.

T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630 (citing F.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). The nonmoving party cannot

“withstand a motion for summary judgment merely by making allegations; rather, the party
opposing the motion must go beyond its pleadings and designate specific facts by use of
affidavits, depositions, admissions, or answers to interrogatories showing there is a penuine issue
for trial.” Inre Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., Sec. Lit., 277 F.3d 658, 666 (3d Cir. 2002). If the
nonmoving party fails to establish a triable issue on an essential element of the movant’s case,
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See United States v. Shumway, 199
F.3d 1093, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999).

B. Trademark Infringement & False Designation of Origin.

The elements necessary to establish a trademark infringement claim under § 32 of the
Lanham Act are: 1) the existence of a mark; and 2) the subsequent use of that mark by another in

a manner likely to create consumer confusion. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); Comedy III Productions,

Inc. v. New Line Cinema, 200 F.3d 593, 594 (9th Cir. 2000). False designation of origin claims

under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act apply to both registered and unregistered marks and protect

against a wider range of practices. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1); Brookfield Communications, Inc. v.

West Coast Entertainment Corp.. 174 F.3d 1036, 1046 n.6 & 1047 n.8 (9th Cir. 1999). The

-5-

eee

Cas

10
li
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Pp 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35_ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 6 of 15

elements necessary to establish a false designation of origin claim are identical to those for
trademark infringement. Id.

Symantec has established the first element—the existence of a mark. Symantec owns a
registered trademark for Symantec, Norton System Works, Norton Antivirus, LiveUpdate,
Goback, CleanSweep, Norton Utilities, pcAnywhere, Norton Ghost, and WinFax Pro. Mann
admits that Symantec owns these trademarks. These facts are undisputed.

Symantec has also established that Mann used one or more of these trademarks in a
manner likely to create consumer confusion. To determine whether there is a likelihood of
confusion, a court considers the following eight factors: (1) similarity of marks; (2) relatedness of
the plaintiff's and defendant’s products or services; (3) marketing methods; (4) strength of
plaintiff's marks; (5) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; (6) evidence of actual confusion;

(7) likelihood of expansion into other markets; and (8) the degree of care likely to be exercised

by purchasers. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 94, 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing

AME v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348 (9th Cir. 1979)). Some of these factors are more

important than others and they must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Brookfield Comm’n,
174 F.3d at 1058. In applying the factors to this case, the court finds that Mann’s actions created
a likelihood of consumer confusion.

1. Similarity of Marks

Mann admits turning over 45 CDs to Baird. Mann also admits that each of these disks
contained copies of Symantec’s copyrighted material, including copyrighted software and
manuals contained in different versions of Symantec’s products. Each of these CDs bore one or
more of Symantec’s registered trademarks. The CDs were counterfeit and made to look exactly
like Symantec’s authorized products. Symantec has established that Mann sold software with
marks similar to those registered by Symantec. Because there is a likelihood that consumers
were confused by the similarity of the products, the court finds that this factor weighs against

Mann.

eee ee ER

Cas

i)

nN a SS Ww

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

e 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35_ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 7 of 15

2. Relatedness of Symantec’s and Mann’s Products or Services

Mann admits that all of the CDs sold were produced to look exactly like genuine
Symantec products. Because it is likely that the public would believe that Mann was selling an
authentic Symantec product when, in fact, the product was counterfeit, this factor weighs against
Mann

3. Marketing Methods

Mann admits that he advertised, marketed, and sold the counterfeit Symantec products on

the Internet at www.rowcal.com. Symantec also has a website through which consumers are

directed to authorized distributors. Rowcal Distribution is not an authorized dealer of Symantec
products, but Mann engaged in the business of advertising, marketing, and selling products
through Roweal Distribution purporting to be genuine Symantec products. There is a likelihood
that consumers could be confused that Roweal Distribution was authorized to sell Symantec
products when, in fact, it was merely a distributor of counterfeit software.

4. Strength of Symantec’s Marks

There is no dispute that Symantec’s marks are strong and recognizable. Mann admits that
Symantec has used their registered trademarks continuously to identify its products. These
trademarks are used both domestically and internationally. This factor is undisputed and weighs
against Mann.

5. Defendant’s Intent in Selecting the Mark

Mann admits that the counterfeit software sold was intended to look exactly like
Symantec’s software. Mann advertised, marketed and sold his counterfeit products to the same
pool of customers targeted by Symantec. In so doing, Mann sought to profit from the good will
and business reputation that had attached to Symantec, its trademarks and copyrighted products.
This factor weighs against Mann.

6. Evidence of Actual Confusion

According to the declaration of Marc Brandon, Symantec’s director of Global Brand

-7-

Fee

Cas

bm Ww bw

oOo wo NN nD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

e 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35_ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 8 of 15

Protection, Symantec received numerous inquiries and requests for support from consumers who
had purchased software from Mann. Symantec examined copies of the software purchased by a
number of these consumers from Mann and determined them to be counterfeit. The court infers
from this evidence that consumers were actually confused by Mann’s actions,

7. Likelihood of Expansion into Other Markets

The summary judgment evidence establishes that Mann intended to advertise and sell the
counterfeit products to Symantec’s target market. When the goods are closely related, any
expansion is likely to result in direct competition. Sleekeraft, 599 F.2d at 354. Symantec and
Mann sold their products to the same pool of customers. Mann’s actions created direct
competition with Symantec thereby creating a likelihood of confusion as to the authenticity of the
product. This factor weighs against Mann.

8. The Degree of Care Likely to be Exercised by Purchasers

There is a strong likelihood that a reasonably prudent consumer would be confused given
the similarities existing between genuine Symantec’s products and the counterfeit products sold
by Mann. The counterfeit CDs sold by Mann were produced to look exactly like Symantec’s
registered software. This factor weighs against Mann.

Based on the foregoing, Symantec has established a prima facie case of infringement by
Mann of Symantec’s registered trademarks in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) and false
designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1).

C. Copyright Infringement.

Symantec owns registered copyrights for Norton AntiVirus, pcAnywhere, Norton Ghost,
Norton System Works, Norton Internet Security, WinFax PRO, and their component software
programs. The owner of a registered copyright has exclusive rights to authorize or distribute

copies of the copyrighted work to the public. 17 U.S.C. § 106(3); Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v.

Drug Emporium, Inc., 38 F.3d 477, 480 (9th Cir. 1994), Distribution of unauthorized

copyrighted materials is grounds for a cause of action for infringement. Id. at 479. The summary

-8-

_— Eee

Case 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35_ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc

a

oO tA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Main Document Page 9 of 15

judgment evidence supports a finding that Mann advertised, marketed, and sold counterfeit
copies of Symantec’s copyrighted works to the public without Symantec’s authorization and in
violation of Symantec’s oral and written demand to cease and desist. Therefore, Symantec has
established a prima facie case of infringement by Mann of Symantec’s registered copyrights in
violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(3).

D. Trafficking in Counterfeit Labels.

Any copyright owner who is injured, or threatened with injury, by one who knowingly
traffics in a counterfeit label affixed to, enclosing, or accompanying a copy of a computer
program in violation of 18 U.S.C § 231 8(a)(1)(B) may bring a civil action for reasonable
attorneys fees and costs together with actual damages and profits or, alternatively, statutory
damages. 18 U.S.C. § 2318(f). For the reasons previously stated, the court finds that Symantec
has established a prima facie case that Mann trafficked in counterfeit labels by Mann in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2318(a)(1 (B).

D. Section 523(a\(6)

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge debts resulting from “willful and malicious
injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
A “deliberate or intentional injury” is required before § 523(a)(6) will render a debt
nondischargeable. See Kawaaukau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998) (stating that
nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6) “takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a
deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury”). Section 523(a)(6) requires separate findings on
the issues of “willful” and “malicious.” The “willful” injury requirement of § 523(a)(6) is met
“when it is shown either that the debtor had a subjective motive to inflict injury or that the debtor
believed that injury was substantially certain to occur as a result of his conduct.” Carrillo v. Su

(In re Su), 290 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Petralia v. Jercich (In re Jercich)}, 238

F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 930 (2001)). A “malicious injury” involves

“(1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done

-9-

<n e ____ eeoVnvXnVXn

Cage 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35 _ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 10 of 15

1 | without just cause or excuse.” Id. at 1146-47 (quoting Jercich, 238 F.3d at 1209). See, e.g.,

2 | Diamond v. Kolcum (In re Diamond), 285 F.3d 822, 829 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a state
3 | court jury finding that the debtors “intentionally caused injury” to the creditor “without just

4 | cause” was entitled to preclusive effect for purposes of § 523(a)(6)); Murray v. Bammer (In re

5 | Bammer), 131 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (stating that malice under § 523 (a)(6)
“does not require a showing of biblical malice, /.¢., personal hatred, spite or ill-will”).
1. Willful Injury

Symantec asserts that the willful requirement is satisfied because the evidence shows that:

OD oOo “I

(1) Mann advertised, marketed, and sold counterfeit Symantec products; (2) Mann continued to
10 | advertise, market, and sell counterfeit Symantec products after being banned from eBay for doing
11 | so; and (3) Mann continued to advertise, market, and sell counterfeit Symantec products after

12 | receiving oral and written demands from Symantec to cease and desist selling the counterfeit

13 | software.

14 Based on the summary judgment record, the court finds that Mann’s conduct was willful.
15 | The evidence establishes that Mann sold counterfeit software that was produced to look exactly
16 | like Symantec software. On March 24, 2005, Mann was notified in person by Baird, Symantec’s
17 | representative, to stop purchasing and selling the counterfeit software. On March 25, 2005,

18 | Mann was given written notice from Symantec demanding that he cease and desist selling the

19 | counterfeit software. Mann admits that he was banned from selling Symantec products on eBay.
20 | He testified by deposition remembering clearly not being permitted to sell Symantec software on
21 | eBay because he was banned. Mann admitted that, despite being banned from selling Symantec
22 | products on eBay and being instructed to stop selling counterfeit copies of Symantec software, he
23 | continued to sell counterfeit software for approximately one year. Mann did not close his

24 | business until March of 2006. In sum, Mann’s actions were deliberate and intentional. Mann

25 | had a subjective motive to inflict injury on Symantec.

26 To defeat Symantec’s summary judgment motion, Mann had the burden of producing

27
-10-

Case 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35 Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Main Document Page 11 of 15

significantly probative evidence to establish a triable issue on an essential element of Symantec’s
case. Essentially, Mann argues that he only continued selling the counterfeit software after
March 2005 because Zheng, a Hi-Tech owner, assured him that the products were different from
Symantec products and not counterfeited. However, Mann’s opposition is not supported by
Zheng’s declaration or any evidence other than his own representation. Mann has not produced
significantly probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding willfulness. The
summary judgment evidence supports a finding that Mann knew that he was selling counterfeit
software, and continued to do so despite a specific demand from Symantec to cease and desist.

2. Malicious Injury

A malicious injury involves: “(1} a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which

necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse. Carrillo v. Su (In re Su),

290 F.3d 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Petralia v. Jerich (In re Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202, 1209

(9th Cir. 2001)). Malice cannot be implied from willfulness. In re Barbazoa, 543 F.3d 712.
However, the facts used to establish malice and willfulness may overlap. Id.

Based on the summary judgment record, the court finds that the evidence establishes that
Mann’s conduct was malicious. Mann committed a wrongful act, and intentionally caused imjury
to Symantec. Mann sold counterfeit Symantec software, and continued to do so despite a
specific demand from Symantec to cease and desist. Mann’s wrongful conduct necessarily
caused injury to Symantec. Symantec is in the business of producing and selling software.
Symantec’s registered trademarks and copyrights ensure that their product will be only be used as
authorized by Symantec. Mann advertised, marketed and sold his counterfeit products to the
same pool of customers targeted by Symantec. In so doing, Mann sought to profit from the good
will and business reputation that had attached to Symantec, its trademarks and copyrighted
products. Mann’s unauthorized actions were intentional and necessarily caused damage to
Symantec’s proprietary interests in its registered trademarks and copyrights. Finally, Mann has

not provided a just cause or excuse. Mann has not produced any evidence to establish that it was

-1l-

Case 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35 Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc

& WwW bv

“HO

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Main Document Page 12 of 15

reasonable to continue to sell counterfeit products after told to quit. Mann had already been
banned from eBay and the evidence indicates that he knew it was wrong to sell counterfeit
software. Mann’s limited business experience and cultural limitations are not valid excuses and
are not supported by evidence.

Symantec is entitled to a partial summary judgment against Mann on all elements of
Symantec’s claim for relief against Mann under § 523(a)(6), except the issue of damages, as a
matter of law.

E. Damages.

In its motion, Symantec has elected to seek the maximum amount of statutory damages
(1) permitted under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) attributable to Mann’s trademark infringement;’ (2)
permitted under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) attributable to Mann’s copyright infringement;* and (3)
permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 2318(6(4) attributable to Mann’s trafficking in counterfeit labels.

However, the court has wide discretion in awarding statutory damages and Symantec has not

¥ Where a counterfeit mark is used, the victim of infringement “may elect, at any time before
final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits
under [15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)], an award of statutory damages for any such use in connection with
the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services in the amount of —

(1) not less than $500 or more than $100,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or
services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, as the court considers just; or

(2) if the court finds that the use of the mark was willful, not more than $1,000,000 per
counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed, as the
court considers just.

15 U.S.C. §1117(d).

4 Where liability for an infringement has been established, the copyright owner “may elect, at
any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits
[under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b)], an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the
action, with respect to any one work . . . ina sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as
the court considers just.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). Ifthe court finds that the infringement was
willful, “the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not
more than $150,000.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

-12-

Case 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35 Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc

CO ~) a

SO

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Main Document Page 13 0f 15

provided evidence to assist the court on the issue of damages. Therefore, the court finds there is
a genuine issue of material fact regarding Symantec’s damages attributable to Mann’s trademark
infringement, copyright infringement, and trafficking in counterfeit labels.
CONCLUSION

Symantec is entitled to a partial summary judgment against Mann on all elements of
Symantec’s claim for relief against Mann under § 523(a)(6), except the issue of damages. The
issue concerning the amount of Symantec’s nondischargeable claim against Mann under §
523(a)(6) will be reserved for trial.

A separate order and judgment will beێntered eynsrstent with this opinion.

Z

PETER H. CARROLL
United States Bankruptcy Judge

Dated: April 6, 2009

-13-

Case 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc35_ Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document Page 14 0£15

In re:
CHAPTER:

Debtor(s). CASE NUMBER:

NOTE TO USERS OF THIS FORM:
1) Attach this form to the last page of a proposed Order or Judgment. Do not file as a separate document.
2) The title of the judgment or order and all service information must be filled in by the party lodging the order.
3) Category I. below: The United States trustee and case trustee (if any} will always be in this category.
4) Category Il. below: List ONLY addresses for debtor (and attorney), movant (or attorney) and person/entity (or attorney) who filed
an opposition to the requested relief. DO NOT list an address if person/entity is listed in category I.

NOTICE OF ENTERED ORDER AND SERVICE LIST

Notice is given by the court that a judgment or order entitled (specify) MEMORANDUM DECISION was entered on the
date indicated as “Entered” on the first page of this judgment or order and will be served in the manner indicated below:

|. SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (“NEF”) - Pursuant to controlling General Order(s} and
Local Bankruptcy Rule(s), the foregoing document was served on the following person(s) by the court via NEF and hyperlink to
the judgment or order. As of__ 4/6/09 _ the following person(s) are currently on the Electronic Mail Notice List for this
bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding to receive NEF transmission at the email address(es) indicated below.

Service information continued on attached page

ll. SERVED BY THE COURT VIA U.S. MAIL: A copy of this notice and a true copy of this judgment or order was sent by
United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) at the address(es) indicated below:

& Service information continued on attached page

lll. TO BE SERVED BY THE LODGING PARTY: Within 72 hours after receipt of a copy of this judgment or order which bears
an “Entered” stamp, the party lodging the judgment or order will serve a complete copy bearing an “Entered” stamp by U.S.
Mail, overnight mail, facsimile transmission or email and file a proof of service of the entered order on the following person(s)
and/or entity(ies) at the address(es), facsimile transmission number(s), and/or email address(es) indicated below:

[] Service information continued on attached page

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.

January 2009 F 9021 -1 . 1

Case 6:08-ap-01178-PC Doc 35 Filed 04/06/09 Entered 04/06/09 16:05:37 Desc
Main Document _ Page 15 of 15

In re:
CHAPTER:

Debtor(s). CASE NUMBER:

ADDITIONAL SERVICE INFORMATION (if needed):

ELECTRONIC

Henry Gonzalez on behalf of Plaintiff Symantec Corporation
hgonzalez@bautelaw.com

Stella A Havkin on behalf of Defendant Calvin Mann
havkinlaw@earthlink.net

United States Trustee (RS)
ustpregion!6.rs.ecf(@usdoj.gov

U.S. MAIL

Stella A Havkin
6320 Canoga Ave #1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.

January 2009 F 9021 -1 1