Deckers v. Australian Leather - Notice of Appeal

Case: 20-2166 Document: 1-1 Page: 1 Filed: 08/18/2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439
PETER R. MARKSTEINER CLERK’S OFFICE

CLERK OF COURT 202-275-8000
August 18, 2020
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
Federal Circuit Docket No.: 2020-2166
Federal Circuit Short Title: Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty
Ltd
Date of Docketing: August 18, 2020
Originating Tribunal: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Originating Case No.: 1:16-cv-03676
Appellants: Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur
A notice of appeal has been filed and assigned the above Federal Circuit case number.
The court's official caption is included as an attachment to this notice. Unless otherwise
noted in the court's rules, the assigned docket number and official caption or short title
must be included on all documents filed with this Court. It is the responsibility of all
parties to review the Rules for critical due dates. The assigned deputy clerk is noted
below and all case questions should be directed to the Case Management section at (202)
275-8055.
The following documents are due within 14 days of this notice:
• Entry of Appearance or Notice of Unrepresented Person Appearance. (Fed. Cir. R.

47.3.)
• Certificate of Interest. (Fed. Cir. R. 47.4; not required for unrepresented and
federal government parties unless disclosing information under Fed. Cir. R.
47.4(a)(6))
• Docketing Statement. Note: The Docketing Statement is due in 30 days if the
United States or its officer or agency is a party in the appeal. (Fed. Cir. R. 33.1 and
the Mediation Guidelines; no docketing statement is required in cases with an
unrepresented party)
• Statement Concerning Discrimination in MSPB or arbitrator cases. (Fed. Cir. R.
15(c); completed by petitioner only)
PARTY FILING AND CONTACT INFORMATION: Each counsel representing a party

must be a member of the court's bar and registered for the court's electronic filing
system. Fed. Cir. R. 25(a). Attorneys whose contact information has changed must make
all changes through their PACER service center profile and file an amended Entry of
Appearance.
Unrepresented parties must submit documents intended for filing to the court in paper.
Unrepresented parties changing contact information must submit an amended Notice of
Unrepresented Person Appearance with the new contact information. Unrepresented
parties registered to receive notices of docket activity must also update their PACER
service center profile.
OFFICIAL CAPTION: The court's official caption is attached and reflects the lower
tribunal's caption pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 12(a), 15(a), and 21(a). Please review the
caption carefully and promptly advise this court in writing of any improper or inaccurate
designations.
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
By: E. Dumont, Deputy Clerk
Attachments:
• Official caption
• Paper Copies of General Information and Forms (to unrepresented parties only):
o General Information and Overview of a Case in the Federal Circuit
o Notice of Unrepresented Person Appearance
o Informal Brief
o Informal Reply Brief (to be completed only after receiving the opposing
party's response brief)
o Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (only to filers
owing the docketing fee)
o Supplemental in Forma Pauperis Form for Prisoners (only to filers in a
correctional institution)
o Statement Concerning Discrimination (only to petitioners in MSPB or
arbitrator case)
cc: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Official Caption
DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
AUSTRALIAN LEATHER PTY LTD, ADNAN OYGUR, dba Eddie Oygur,

Defendants-Appellants
Short Caption
Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty Ltd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Illinois
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Thomas G. Bruton 312-435-5670

Clerk
Date: 8/14/2020
U.S. Federal Court of Appeals

717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439
Re: Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty Ltd

USDC Case Number: 1:16-cv-03676
USCA Case Number:
Dear Clerk:
I am sending you herewith the short record on appeal consisting of the Notice of Appeal,
Federal Circuit Appeal Information Sheet, and copies of the FRAP 3(d) letter, docket sheet and
the appealed order.
Please acknowledge date of receipt of the above mentioned materials on the attached
copy of this letter.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk
By: /s/ P. Janeczek

Deputy Clerk
Rev. 09/23/2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Appeal Information
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Type of case: Patent Infringement Case
(List all parties. Use asterisk to indicate dismissed or withdrawn parties. Use separate sheet if needed. Explain
any discrepancy with caption used on judgment, order or opinion)
Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s)
Deckers Outdoor Corporation Australian Leather Pty Ltd

Adnan Oygur
Docket No: 16cv3676 Date of Judgment/Order

2/6/2020
Cross/Related Appeal: Date of Notice of Appeal:

8/12/2020
Appellant ( ) Plaintiff ( ) Defendant (X ) Other (explain) ( )
FEES:
Appeals Docket Fee Paid? Yes (X ) No ( )

U.S. Appeal? Yes ( ) No ( X)
In Forma Pauperis? Yes ( ) No (X )
COUNSEL
(List name, firm, address and telephone of lead counsel for each party. Indicate party represented. Use
separate sheet if necessary.)
Plaintiff: Defendant:
Paul G. Juettner Mark R Bagley
Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. Tolpin & Partners, PC
300 South Wacker Drive 100 North LaSalle Street
25th Floor Suite 501
Chicago, IL 60606 Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 360‐0080 (312) 698‐8971
COURT REPORTER: Colleen Conway 312-435-5594
IMPORTANT: Attach copy of opinion or order appealed from. Forward together with copy of notice of
appeal and certified docket entries.

Northern District of Illinois
219 South Dearborn Street
Thomas G. Bruton 312-435-5670

Clerk
Date: 8/14/2020
Re: Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty Ltd
The attached copy of the Notice of Appeal is being mailed to all parties pursuant to
F.R.A.P. 3 (d). The record on appeal is being maintained in our office until it is requested by the
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
For your convenience pertinent information re: perfecting the appeal which is taken from
the Procedural Handbook for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is listed
below:
The notice of appeal is filed with the clerk of the trial court (District Court) along with
the fee for filing the notice and the $505 appellate docket fee. CAFC 10 (a). Appeals will be
docketed upon receipt from the clerk of the trial court of (1) a copy of the notice of appeal, (2) a
certified copy of docket entries, and (3) a copy of the appeal information sheet. Appeals under
28USC 1292 (d) will be docketed on grant of the appeal by the Court and receipt of a certified
copy of docket entries and a copy of the appeal information sheet
The record on appeal shall consist of all papers named in FRCP 10(a) and 16. All papers
are normally retained by the tribunal from which the appeal is taken. When deemed necessary,
the court, on motion or sua sponte, may order filing of the original or certified copies of the trial
or administrative record or any portions thereof at any time during pendency of the appeal.
When a transcript is required, the appellant has the duty to order it from the reporter and
to give notice to appellee if a partial transcript is ordered as required by FRAP 10(b). Where no
report of the proceedings was made or the transcript is unavailable, the provisions of FRAP 10c
shall govern.
Telephone inquiries from counsel concerning rules and procedures are welcomed by the
Clerk's Office for the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. This office is located in
Room 401 of the National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20439
and is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephone (202) 275-8000.
Sincerely,
Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk
By: /s/ P. Janeczek

Deputy Clerk
cc: Counsel of record
Rev. 10/14/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, )

) Case Number: 1:16-cv-03676
Plaintiff, )
) Judge Manish S. Shah
v. )
)
AUSTRALIAN LEATHER PTY. LTD. and )
ADNAN OYGUR a/k/a EDDIE OYGUR, )
)
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Defendants Australian Leather Pty. Ltd. and Adnan " Eddie,,
Oygur appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the September
13, 2018 Order of the District Court regarding summary judgment, the December 19, 2019 Order
of the District Court, the February 6, 2020 Final Judgment of the District Court, the July 13,
2020 Order of the District Court regarding post-trial motions, and all orders and opinions merged
within these orders.
Respectfully submitted,
AUSTRALIAN LEATHER PTY. LTD. and

EDDIE OYGUR
Date: August 12, 2020 By: /s/ Mark R. Bagley _

Mark R. Bagley
TOLPIN & PARTNERS, PC
100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 501
(312) 698-8971
Attorney for Defendants Australian

Leather Pty. Ltd. and Eddie Oygur
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL was
served via the Northern District of Illinois electronic filing system to:
Paul G. Juettner
Justin R. Gaudio
Patrick Smith
RiKaleigh C. Johnson
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD.
300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Kent Raygor
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, California 90067
on this 12th day of August, 2020.
/s/ Mark R. Bagley _

Mark R. Bagley
2

EASTERN DIVISION
DECKERS OUTDOOR CORP.,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
No. 16 CV 3676
v.
Judge Manish S. Shah
ADNAN 0YGUR a/k/a EDDIE 0YGUR,
Defendants/Counter-
Plaintiffs.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Deckers Outdoor Corp., the company that owns the popular UGG brand, filed
this lawsuit against Australian Leather Pty. Ltd., and its owner, Adnan Oygur,
asserting claims for trademark and design patent infringement, because Australian
Leather sells boots called "ugg boots." Defendants filed counterclaims and affirmative
defenses, asserting, among other things, that Deckers's trademarks containing the
word UGG should be canceled or that Deckers should be barred from enforcing them.
Defendants say that ugg is a generic term for a kind of sheepskin boot, one
popularized by Australian surfers in the 1970s, and therefore, Deckers cannot stop
them from calling their boots uggs in the United States.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on some of defendants'
counterclaims and affirmative defenses. For the reasons discussed below, Deckers's
motion is granted in part, denied in part, and Australian Leather's motion is denied.
I. Legal Standards
Summary judgment 1s appropriate if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists
if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The
party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986). "The ordinary standards for summary judgment remain unchanged on
cross-motions for summary judgment: we construe all facts and inferences arising
from them in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is
made." Blow v. Bijora, Inc., 855 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir. 2017). "Cross-motions must
be evaluated together, and the court may not grant summary judgment for either side
unless the admissible evidence as a whole-from both motions-establishes that no
material facts are in dispute." Bloodworth v. Vill. of Greendale, 475 F. App'x 92, 95
(7th Cir. 2012).
II. Analysis
Deckers and Australian Leather each move for summary judgment on
Australian Leather's counterclaims for declaratory judgment that the mark UGG is
unenforceable and for cancellation of Deckers's trademark registrations. Deckers
moves for summary judgment on Australian Leather's counterclaims for false
designation of origin, false statements in violation of the Lanham Act, fraudulent
2
procurement of trademark registrations, a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. Deckers also moves for summary judgment on four of
Australian Leather's 1 affirmative defenses that have overlapping issues with the
subject counterclaims: that ugg is a generic term in the U.S., that it is generic in
Australia, that it should be treated as generic in the U.S. pursuant to the foreign
equivalents doctrine, and that Deckers fraudulently obtained its trademark
registrations.
A. Generic Status and the Foreign Equivalents Doctrine
A generic term is one which is commonly used as the name or description of a
kind of good. Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc., 561 F.2d 75, 79
(7th Cir. 1977) (citing William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 265 U.S. 526, 528
(1924)). And a generic term "cannot become a trademark under any circumstances."
Id. Though a federally registered trademark is presumptively valid, 15 U.S.C. § 1115,
if at any time a "registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services,"
an affected party can petition to cancel the registration. 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). In
determining whether a mark has become generic, the "primary significance of the
registered mark to the relevant public rather than the purchaser motivation shall be
the test." Id. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, one cannot obtain a trademark
over a foreign generic word if the trademark designation "would prevent competitors
1 Because, as relevant here, Australian Leather and Oygur's affirmative defenses are the
same, I refer to them collectively as Australian Leather.
3
from designating a product as what it is in the foreign language their customers know
best." Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc., 175 F.3d 266, 271 (2d Cir.
1999). Australian Leather argues that the term ugg is generic in the United States
both because American surfers understood the term to refer to sheepskin boots
generally and because its generic status in Australia, combined with the foreign
equivalents doctrine, warrants generic status in the United States. 2
1. The UGGBrand
Brian Smith, who was born in Australia and moved to the United States in
1978, founded the sheepskin-boot company known today as UGG. [189] ,r,r 5, 10. 3
2Both parties raise objections throughout that relate to the relevance of evidence presented.
Many of these objections stem from the parties' central disagreement about how to define the
relevant class of purchasers, which matters when considering consumer perceptions to
determine whether the term was generic. For reasons discussed below, I conclude that the
relevant consumer perceptions are those of American footwear consumers generally. For that
reason, evidence from non-surfer consumers is relevant. And though the test centers on
American perceptions, the Australian experience is not irrelevant to that determination. See
G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 873 F.2d 985, 1000 n. 15 (7th Cir. 1989).
Because many early players in the American sheepskin boot business had ties to Australia,
this information provides helpful context. As to the relevant time period, a trademark is
subject to cancellation at any time if it becomes generic. As a result, post-1979---the date
Deckers asserts it first used the UGG trademark-evidence is relevant as well.
3 Bracketed numbers refer to entries on the district court docket. Referenced page numbers
are taken from the CM/ECF header placed at the top of filings, except in the case of citations
to depositions, which use the deposition transcript's original page number. The facts are
largely taken from plaintiffs response to defendants' Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts,
[173], and defendants' response to plaintiffs LR 56.1 statement of additional facts, [189],
where the asserted fact and accompanying response are set forth in the same document. Any
document previously filed under seal and referenced in this opinion shall be unsealed; by
October 11, 2018, the parties shall file a joint statement identifying the docket entries for
unsealing or stating a basis for continued secrecy. See Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297
F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) ("In civil litigation only trade secrets, information covered by a
recognized privilege (such as the attorney-client privilege), and information required by
statute to be maintained in confidence (such as the name of a minor victim of a sexual
assault), is entitled to be kept secret on appeal."). If any filing remains under seal, the filer
must ensure there is a public version of the document with appropriate redactions.
4
Smith owned a pair of sheepskin boots while still living in Australia, and he and
others referred to them generally as ugg4 boots. [173] ,r 19. 5 Once he moved to the
United States, specifically in December 1979, Smith began purchasing boots from an
Australian company, Country Leather, and reselling them in the United States under
the name Country Leather America. [189] ,r 5; [141] ,r 7. 6 Smith bought six pairs of
sample boots, followed by an additional 500 pairs, which had a sewed-on label that
read, "Country Leather" and a hang tag with the phrase, "Ugg Boots keep you Warm
& Happy." [214] ,r 69. Smith knew that another individual had trademarked the term
"Ugh Boots" for sheepskin boots in Australia in the early 1970s. [189] ,r 12. In early
1980, Smith applied to register UGG as a trademark in the United States, listing
December 28, 1979, as the first-use date. [214] ,r 70; [189] ,r 6. The Trademark Office
rejected the application because the mark did not "serve to identify and distinguish
applicant's goods," and Smith did not reapply. Id. In April 1980, Smith-on behalf of
UGG Imports-agreed to be the sole agent and distributor for Country Leather's
4 I use all capital letters (UGG) when referring to the brand or companies Smith founded. I
use lowercase letters (ugg) when referring to sheepskin boots generally. I stray from this
convention when quoting from an advertisement or other written material to accurately
reflect the content of the cited source, and in those instances, I put the term in quotation
marks.
5The additional information in Deckers's response to Australian Leather's statement of facts
does not refute Australian Leather's assertion, in violation of LR 56.1, and I disregard it.
6 The parties dispute whether these boots were sold under the UGG brand or trademark. An
invoice refers to the items as "Short UGG Boot" and "Tall UGG Boot." [154-13] at 53. Viewing
the facts in the light most favorable to Australian Leather, as is necessary when considering
Deckers's motion for summary judgment, the word may have been used in the generic sense
on this invoice, despite the all-capitals.
5
sheepskin products in the U.S. See [141-3] at 3. 7 A few years later, Smith made a
third order for about 2,200 pairs of boots. [214] ,r 69.

In its early years, UGG Imports was just Smith and his partner, Doug Jensen.
[189] ,r 9. In the first year of business, both Smith and Jensen attempted to sell UGG
footwear to surf and ski shops, as well as shoe stores. Id. Smith visited 50 surf shops
that year, and some shop owners referred to the boots as ugg boots without
prompting. Id. ,r 10. In a speech, Smith described his first two attempts at selling to
surf-shop owners as follows: "And the first store I walked into, I was super nervous
and really timid, and I open up the bag, and-and the guy goes, 'Ah, UGG boots, man.
They're fantastic .... I got a pair. Buddy brought them back for me.' And next store I
went to was, 'Oh UGG boots. Yeah my buddies have all got those. They swear by
them.'" Id. ,r 11. 8 Smith and Jensen had similar reactions from other shops as well.
[214] ,r 63. The parties disagree about the extent to which shop owners were familiar
with the term ugg and whether they used it in a generic sense. Viewing the facts in
light most favorable to Australian Leather, some shop owners were familiar with the
term and used it generically, to refer to the style of the boots, and not in reference to
Smith's company.
7 The parties dispute whether, as a result of this agreement, Ugg Imports acquired any rights
that Country Leather had in the trademark UGG in the United States by virtue of Country
Leather's 1979 advertisements in Surfer magazine. Because the letters themselves do not so
provide, see [141-3]; [141-4], I treat this fact as disputed and view it in Australian Leather's
favor, which is that Ugg Imports did not acquire any rights from those advertisements.
8When someone spoke of the term it was not clear whether that person was referencing the
spelling ugg, ugh, or ug. Id. , 12.
6
In an interview, Smith said that surfers "all knew of UGG in some way before
I even started, and that's really why I did it. They already had a recognition in the
surf market." Id. ,r 64. Though some shop owners and surfers were familiar with the
term, customers generally were not. [189] ,r 12. In addition to targeting surf and ski
shops, Smith and Jensen sold their products at flea markets, swap meets, farmers
markets, and from Smith's van. Id. ,r 9. Smith also attended ski shows in Las Vegas,
where other companies selling sheepskin boots used the word ugg in their company
name. [173] ,r 51.9

By 1983, UGG Imports had advertised in major national publications such as
Surfer magazine and Action Sport Retailer, received inquiries from over 105 retail
stores, and made 384 separate invoice sales to retailers all over the United States.
[189] ,r 13. Deckers acquired UGG Holdings (the successor to UGG Imports) and its
UGG trademark in 1995. Id. ,r 18. After Deckers acquired the UGG brand, it
repositioned it as a luxury brand and sold its products in well-known department
stores and through other third-party retailers, along with its own UGG concept stores
and online. Id. ,r 19. Deckers spent tens of millions of dollars in advertising
campaigns in fashion magazines during the early 2000s, and media outlets, movies,
and TV shows featured UGG products. Id. ,r,r 22-26. The brand became a favorite
among celebrities, received various awards, and had over $1 billion in global annual
9Smith did not recall seeing the specific company names that Australian Leather asserted,
and he could not recall the date of the ski show, but he did indicate that at the shows he
attended other companies used the word ugg in their names. [161] at 122:15-123:22; [173]
~ 51.
7
sales every year since 2011. Id. ,r,r 24-26. The UGG product line came to include a
wide range of footwear and apparel for men, women, and children; handbags;
accessories; and home goods. Id. ,r 20.

2. Other Sheepskin Boot Retailers
Four Australian boot-suppliers testified about their experiences selling
sheepskin boots to U.S. customers. Id. ,r 48. 10 John Arnold sold sheepskin boots
(which he referred to as ugg boots) in the U.S. in the 1960s and early 1970s, selling
thousands of pairs per week. Id. ,r 50; [204] ,r 55. Arnold used the boots as packing
material in his shipments of surfboards. [189] ,r 51. He sold mostly to surf shops and
did not sell to mainstream footwear shops. Id. Roger Bosley, an Australian who was
in the sheepskin business from 1973-84, traveled to the U.S. in 1979 in hopes of
selling boots, but found Americans were not interested. [189] ,r 53; [1 73] ,r 15; [136-
21] at 16:23-19:23. A year later, Bosley opened four retail shops in Los Angeles, which
he operated for a little under two years, where he sold sheepskin boots under a
cardboard sign that read "UGG BOOTS." [189] ,r,r 54-55; [173] ,r 50. 11 Bosley stated
that ugg had always been a generic term in Australia. [173] ,r 15; [136-21] at 25:7-
10 Deckers points out that none of these individuals provided any documentation of the sales
they made. See id. Nonetheless, their assertions are treated as true at the summary-
judgment stage.
11Deckers notes that Bosley's company catalog described the boots as "sheepskin footwear"
and did not refer to them as uggs. But Bosley testified that he sold them under a sign labeling
them uggs, and at this stage, because his testimony is favorable to Australian Leather, and
he has personal knowledge of the sign he used, I treat it as true.
8
19. 12 An Australian sheep slaughterer and tanner, Peter Dorizzi, sold sheepskin boots
to visiting American sailors. [189] ,r 57. He first attempted selling his boots wholesale
to stores in the U.S. in 1980 but was unsuccessful. Id. In 1983, he sold "probably'' 800
pairs at the 1983 America's Cup and then sold 40-50 leftover pairs in California. Id.
,r 59. Dorizzi believed that ugg was a generic term and that all manufacturers used
it to describe sheepskin boots. [173] ,r 13; [136-19] at 40: 2-7. Robert Hayter also tried
to sell sheepskin boots at the 1983 America's Cup, but was unable to sell many pairs
and was disappointed in the response in America. [189] ,r 62. According to Hayter,
the term ugg boot "didn't mean much to [American customers] at all." Id. ,r 64. 13
Oygur-Australian Leather's owner-purchased a pair of sheepskin boots as an
eleven-year-old boy in Australia in 1971, and said that back then, everyone called
them ugg boots. [173] ,r 17.

American surf-shop owners started selling sheepskin boots in their shops in
the late 1960s. Terry McKendree, who owned two surf shops in Jacksonville, Florida
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, imported sheepskin boots from Australia to sell in
his own shops. [189] ,r 65. McKendree also arranged sales for other U.S. shops. [173]
,r 49; [136-22] at 34:7-12. He first learned about sheepskin boots during a 1969 trip
to Australia, where surfers wore them to warm their feet after surfing in cold water.
12 Contrary to Deckers's objection, Australian Leather's assertion that Bosley testified that
ugg boots has always been a generic term in Australia is supported by cited testimony. See
[136-21] at 25:7-19.
13Australian Leather asserts that Hayter testified that the term ugg was generic in
Australia, but the cited testimony does not support this assertion. [173] ,r 14; [136-20] at
148:5-14. Hayter merely agreed that a document being presented to him stated that ugg was
generic; it does not show that he believed the term was generic. Id.
9
[173], 16; [214], 53. At that time, people in Australia used the term ugg to describe
the type of boots. Id. The boots McKendree sold were marked "Made in Australia" and
sold out of a bin in his stores labeled "UGG boots." [189] , 66. At the time he sold the
boots, McKendree considered ugg to be generic. [214] , 58. McKendree placed an ad
in Surfing magazine in the February 1970 issue, advertising "Australian Sandals."
Id.; [189] , 67. The ad displayed six pieces of footwear, one of which was a sheepskin
boot labeled "UGG BOOT." [189] , 67. Aside from the ad in Surfing magazine, two
other pre-1979 U.S. advertisements used the term "UGG" or "Ugg'' followed by ''boot":
one in a Santa Cruz newspaper (December 1972), 14 and one in Surfer magazine
(November and December 1979). Id., 47. 15
Another surf-shop owner, Glen Kennedy, first became familiar with sheepskin
boots on a trip to Australia in 1973-though he did not know if anyone referred to
them as ugg boots. Id. , 70. In the early 1980s, Kennedy began selling them in his
California shop-selling around 80 pairs per year by 1986. Id. , 71. After 1986,
Kennedy bought sheepskin boots from Smith, and sold them under the UGG brand.
Id., 72. Kennedy had to explain to customers what the boots were for; only the few
customers who had traveled to Australia were familiar with them. Id. Four other
individuals, who worked in different capacities in the footwear industry, ranging from
14Deckers raises foundation and hearsay objections to the Santa Cruz newspaper. See [214]
,r 57. But Deckers asserts,
and Australian Leather agrees, that this issue of the newspaper
referenced ''UGG BOOTS." [189] ,r 4 7.
15In addition to the Santa Cruz newspaper, [184-3], Australian Leather also relies on an
Australian phonebook which uses ugg generically, [184-7]; an article which purports to quote
Smith, [184-8]; and a copy of UGG's webpage, [184-25]. But this evidence was not properly
authenticated, and I do not consider it. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.
10
sales clerks to the former CEO of Deckers, consistently surveyed the market and
believed that UGG had always been a brand name. Id. ,r,r 73-77.
In 1971, Shane Stedman registered UGH-BOOTS as a trademark in Australia
for boots, shoes, and slippers, and in 1982 he registered the mark UGH for boots,
including sheepskin boots, shoes, and slippers. Id. ,r 79. A one-time professional
surfer from Southern California met Stedman in Australia and ordered a hundred
pairs of the boots from him but was unable to sell them in the U.S. Id. ,r,r 68--69.
Deckers purchased the UGH-BOOTS trademark in 1996, and both marks remained
on the Australian register until 2006 when they were removed for non-use. Id. ,r 79.
Defendant Australian Leather, an Australian corporation founded in the
1990s, also manufactured sheepskin boots and labeled them "UGG" boots. [189] ,r 2,
112; [204] ,r 23. Adnan Oygur was its sole owner and managing director. [189] ,r 2.
Australian Leather did not market to the U.S., though it made sales to American
consumers over the internet. Id. ,r 112. Australian Leather first sold footwear bearing
the UGG mark to the U.S. on October 27, 2014. Id. Its invoices reflected 33 internet
orders for 42 products from American individuals between 2014-16. Id. In addition
to individual sales, American retailers contacted Oygur to inquire about wholesale
purchasing opportunities. Id. ,r 115.

3. Consumer Perceptions
The predominant customers ofUGG boots were women between the ages 16 to
54. Id. ,r 20. In 2017, Deckers commissioned a nationwide survey of 600 women in
this age range who had purchased a pair of boots or casual shoes (not including
11
athletic shoes) in the past 12 months or who thought they would in the next 12
months. Id. ,r,r 33-34. The survey included three brand-name controls and three
generic-name controls, and revealed that 98% of respondents viewed UGG as a brand
name:
Understanding of Various Shoe Names, Among All Survey Respondents
UGG TOMS ROCKPORT ECCO SLIDE CLOG FLATS
(n=600} (n=600} (n=600} (n=60D} (n=600} (n=600} (n=600}

Brand name 98% 91% 74% 71% 2% 4% <1%
Common name 1 2 2 3 76 94 99
Other 0 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 0
Haven't
heard of it/ 1 7 23 26 21 2 0
don't know
Id. ,r 33. In addition to the 2017 survey, Deckers commissioned similar surveys in
2004 and 2011. Id. ,r 34. In 2004, 58% of all respondents understood UGG to be a
brand name and in 2011, 89% of respondents did. Id.
A linguistics professor searched dictionaries and databases-including the
Corpus of Contemporary American English, Google Books, Lexis-Nexis Academic,
and the Newspaper Archive-for two relevant time periods (1970-80 and 2009-15)
for uses of the word ugg. Id. ,r,r 36-40. None of the sources she looked at revealed that
ugg, ug, or ugh was used generically in the footwear context. Id. 16 Another linguist
replicated some of these searches and similarly found no results referring to footwear.
16Australian Leather objects to the professor's methodology, pointing out that one of the
databases did not have entries for the 1970-79 timeframe and she did not know offhand the
amount of material some of the databases contained for the given timeframes. See [189] ,r 40.
These objections implicate the weight of the evidence and do not refute the underlying
asserted fact that those searches returned no relevant results.
12
Id. ,i 41. A footwear historian was asked: from 1969-84, "what terminology was used
in the United States by the footwear trade and American public for footwear made in
whole or in part of sheepskin," and "what was the primary significance of the term
'UGG' in the American footwear trade and among the American public?" Id. ,i 43.
After conducting his own research and considering the catalogs and materials
provided to him, this historian concluded that neither the word ugg, nor any variation
of that spelling, was used "as a generic term by the general consuming public or the
footwear trade in the U.S." Id. The historian testified it was possible that a "tiny little
group of surfers in Southern California" knew about the term ugg apart from the
brand, but noted that "[t]his small group of surfers ... doesn't talk about the entire
country," which was the focus of his inquiry. [214] ,r 67; [184-10] at 108:3-12. Prior
to UGG-brand advertisements from 1979 and the early 1980s, he concluded, ugg had
no significance in the footwear trade or among American consumers. [189] ,r 43.

The Complete Footwear Dictionary, which identifies 110 types of boots and has
been described as the "most widely used and authoritative general book on the subject
of footwear," does not mention uggs. Id. ,i 44. Other footwear companies and articles
published in the U.S. in the 1970s used terms like sheepskin, lambskin, lambswool,
shearling, and genuine shearling wool fleece, to describe similar boots. Id. ,r,r 45-46.
Deckers's competitors continued to use similar terms to describe their products into
2018. [204] ,r 6.
Australian Leather relies on a declaration and exhibits submitted during an
Australian Trade Marks Office proceeding called Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. B&B
13
McDougall. [136-2]. The exhibits attached to the declaration include Australian
telephone books, advertisements, and dictionaries using the term ugg. But the
declaration itself fails to comport with 28 U.S.C. § 1746(1) and is inadmissible
hearsay. As a result, the exhibits are not properly authenticated, and I do not consider
them. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. In any event, as discussed below, even assuming
Australian Leather established that ugg was generic in Australia, in part by offering
these phone books, ads, and dictionaries, it has not linked that finding in any way to
consumer perceptions in the U.S. and so considering this evidence would not change
the result here.
4. Generic Status
Australian Leather has not shown that ugg is, or ever has been, generic among
footwear customers in the U.S-the relevant public. Australian Leather argues that
the word ugg was generic among American surfers in the 1970s, but there is no reason
to construe the relevant public so narrowly. Sheepskin boots are not a specialized
technology that appeals only to some limited consumer base. See Nartron Corp. v.
STMicroelectronics, Inc., 305 F.3d 397, 406 (6th Cir. 2002). Though many early
customers were surfers, anyone can purchase and wear boots (as evidenced by the
shift in UGG's consumer-base over time). To show that ugg is generic, Australian
Leather relies on the statements from a handful of American surfers and surf-shop
owners; testimony from Australian manufacturers who sold boots in the U.S.
(including statements from Smith); and a few advertisements. It points to no
additional evidence, surveys or otherwise, of consumer perceptions. Crediting this
14
evidence and drawing inferences in Australian Leather's favor demonstrates that
some individuals used ugg generically in the past. But this is not enough to justify
the conclusion that American footwear purchasers generally view ugg as a generic
term. Based on Deckers's survey evidence and expert testimony-which revealed no
generic uses of ugg in any dictionaries or databases and showed that 98% of
consumers interviewed thought ugg was a brand-no reasonable factfinder could
conclude that ugg is or ever was a generic word for sheepskin boots in the U.S.
Looking to the Australian experience does not alter this outcome. Although
evidence of how Australians used the word ugg could be relevant to consumer
perceptions in the U.S., generic usage in Australia is not enough on its own to infer
generic meaning in the United States. See G. Heileman Brewing, 873 F.2d at 1000 n.
15. The foreign-equivalents doctrine does not dictate a different analysis. See id.
(citing Duncan F. Duncan, Inc. v. Royal Tops Mfg. Co., Inc., 343 F.2d 655, 661-62
(7th Cir. 1965), and noting that the generic status of "yo-yo" in the Philippines was
not dispositive of trademark status in the United States). First, the doctrine is not a
perfect fit for English to English, and is generally used to analyze non-English terms
used in the American marketplace. 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition § 12:41 (5th ed.) ("Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a word
commonly used in another language as the generic name of a product cannot be
imported into the United States and be transformed into a valid trademark. Generic
names in languages other than English have often been held to be generic for the
15
American trade.") (emphasis added). 17 Second, as applied here, the doctrine is simply
an expression of the prohibition on allowing a trademark to monopolize a generic
term. Australian Leather has evidence that ugg is generic in Australia, but there is
no evidence that Americans familiar with Australian usage (or Australian visitors to
the United States) would be misled into thinking that there is only one brand of ugg-
style sheepskin boots available in this country. Australian Leather needed to come
forward with some evidence that would allow a jury to conclude that the term ugg
has a generic meaning to buyers in the United States; its Australian and surf-shop
evidence does not suffice.
Australian Leather, through expert testimony from an intellectual property
professor at Monash University in Australia, also attempts to introduce evidence
regarding the legal status of ugg in Australia. Australian Leather retained the
professor to report on whether the word ugg (or minor variations of that term) is
generic in Australia for sheepskin footwear. Deckers argues that the report is
inadmissible because the legal status of ugg in Australia is irrelevant and that the
professor's testimony is inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert. Deckers also notes
that whether the term was generic in Australia in the past is outside of the scope of
the report; the professor focused his analysis on the current legal status of the term.
"In determining foreign law, the court may consider any relevant material or source,
including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the
17 See UGG Holdings, Inc. v. Severn, No. CV04-1137-JFW FMOX, 2005 WL 5887187,
at *6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2005).
16
Federal Rules of Evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. But the legal status of the term in
Australia is irrelevant, 18 and the legal expert is not qualified to testify about
consumer perceptions. As a result, I do not consider the report in deciding these
motions.
Even assuming the term is generic in Australia, no reasonable jury could
conclude that it is generic in the United States.
B. Fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office
Australian Leather argues that Deckers's predecessor fraudulently acquired
its trademark in an UGG ram logo, asserting both a counterclaim seeking damages
caused by that fraud and an affirmative defense. 19 See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1115(b)(l); 1120
("Any person who shall procure registration in the Patent and Trademark Office of a
mark by a false or fraudulent declaration or representation ... shall be liable in a
civil action by any person injured thereby for any damages sustained in consequence
thereof."). Fraud in procuring a trademark "occurs when an applicant knowingly
makes false, material representations of fact in connection with an application."
Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shadow Network, Inc., 104 F.3d 336, 340 (Fed. Cir.
1997). A plaintiff alleging that a trademark was obtained though fraudulent means
must demonstrate fraud with clear and convincing evidence. Money Store v.
18For this reason, I also disregard asserted facts about trademark law in Australia generally
and about the legal status of the word ugg in Australia. [173] ,r,r 18, 20-28; [204] ,r,r 3-4, 9-
12. See also footnote 2 above.
19In its response to Deckers's motion for summary judgment, Australian Leather waived any
fraud claims in connection with all trademark applications aside from the '992 application.
[181] at 27.
17
Harriscorp Finance, Inc., 689 F.2d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 1982). A mistake in an
application is insufficient. Id. at 678. Heightened burdens of proof, such as the clear-
and-convincing-evidence standard, should be considered at the summary-judgment
stage. Anderson, 4 77 U.S. at 255.
In December 1985, UGG Imports applied to register the following logo with the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:
0 0
[189] ,r 88. In the application, Smith declared that he believed the corporation to be
the owner of the mark and that no other person had the right to use the mark. Id. He
initially listed the date of first use as December 28, 1979, but later amended that date
°
to June 1983. Id. ,r 89. 2 Carl Brown, the attorney for UGG Imports who prosecuted
the trademark, spoke with a Trademark Examining Attorney regarding the
application. Id. ,r 91. Jody Drake, a former trademark examining attorney testified
that an examiner would be required to ask the applicant "[d]oes the term 'UGG' have
any meaning in a relevant trade or industry." [184-17] at 84:1-25. Drake concluded
that because the examining attorney reviewing UGG's application wrote "[t]here is
no significance," Brown must have answered that there was no meaning in the
20 Australian Leather notes that Deckers amended the first-use date after resolving a
trademark lawsuit and argues Smith lied to gain an advantage in that litigation. For reasons
discussed below, whether Smith lied in this application is irrelevant.
18
relevant industry. Id. Brown testified that during that conversation, the examining
attorney asked him whether ugg ''had any meaning in the sheepskin business as a
grade or the like." Id. ,r 91; [154-16] at 13:19-24. According to Brown, he replied that
he didn't think so in the U.S., but that he thought ugg was used to identify sheepskin
boots in Australia. [189] ,r 91; [154-16] at 13:25-14:3. The UGG ram logo trademark
registered in 1987 as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,460,992. [189] ,r 90; [173]
,r 30. Deckers did not renew the '992 registration, and it expired in 2008. [189] ,r 90.
Australian Leather alleges that both Smith and Brown made material
misrepresentations in this application. Australian Leather asserts that Smith
purposefully gave the wrong first-use date to gain an advantage in a separate lawsuit
and lied when saying his company had the exclusive right to the mark when he knew
the word ugg was generic. Brown lied to the examining attorney, Australian Leather
asserts, when saying ugg had no significance in the relevant industry. 21 But because
the '992 trademark expired in 2008---six years before Australian Leather's entry into
the U.S. market-Australian Leather has failed to establish that it sustained any
damages from Deckers's alleged fraud. See 15 U.S.C. § 1120.
Australian Leather argues that had Brown (both parties focus on Brown's
statements) told the truth in the application, and disclosed that ugg was a generic
term in Australia, the examining attorney would have placed a disclaimer on the
21As evidence that Brown made this statement knowing it was false, Australian Leather
points to a supposedly contradictory statement Brown made in a deposition for the Severn
lawsuit and to Drake's expert testimony that Brown must have told the examining attorney
there was no relevant meaning to the term in the industry to have the trademark issued
without a disclaimer attached to the word UGG.
19
word UGG in the mark, which would have signaled the mark's generic status in
future applications and prevented UGG from obtaining a trademark in the word
itself. Australian Leather's theory is inconsistent with the law. Even assuming that
with full disclosure, the examining attorney would have attached a disclaimer to
UGG in the ram logo, it does not follow that the word ugg is generic. And because it
is not generic to the relevant consumers in the U.S., Deckers may rightfully own its
subsequent trademarks. Australian Leather cannot attribute any harm it has
suffered from Deckers's ownership rights to the '992 trademark as opposed to any
other. And even if all Deckers's trademark registrations were subject to cancellation
based on fraudulent procurement, it would still have its common-law ownership
rights. See Specialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Industries, 616 F.3d 722, 728 (7th
Cir. 2010) (holding that cancellation of a trademark's registration does not "affect the
mark's validity, because a trademark need not be registered to be enforceable"). Any
damages Australian Leather suffered from Deckers's trademarks cannot be
attributed to any fraud associated with the '992 trademark, and without damages,
Australian Leather's counterclaim fails.
Deckers does not allege that Australian Leather violated the '992 trademark
(nor could it, since the mark has expired), so the alleged fraud would not be an
affirmative defense to the claims in this case. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(l) (providing
that a plaintiffs right to use a registered mark is subject to the defense that "the
registration or the incontestable right to use the mark was obtained fraudulently."
20
(emphasis added)). Any fraudulent procurement of the '992 mark had no impact on
Australian Leather, and so it cannot recover for that fraud or use it as a defense.
C. False Designation of Origin
Australian Leather alleges that Deckers falsely represents that its boots are
made in Australia in violation of the Lanham Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Practices Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. To prevail on a claim under any
of these theories, a plaintiff must show that the defendant made a deceptive or
misleading statement. 15 U.S.C. § 1125; 815 ILCS 510/2; 815 ILCS 505/2.
From 1979-85, UGG Imports manufactured all its footwear in Australia. [189]
,r 99. It began sourcing some footwear through a New Zealand factory in the late
1980s, though most UGG footwear sold through 1995 was made in Australia. Id. As
the brand grew, UGG moved its manufacturing to China, Vietnam, and elsewhere,
though it continued to source most of its sheepskin from Australia. Id. While Deckers
has continually marketed its footwear reflecting the brand's Australian heritage, it
also expanded its product line to include non-heritage products, and in 2015, Deckers
rebranded from UGG Australia to UGG. Id. ,i 21.
Australian Leather argues that it is deceptive to use the slogan UGG Australia
when the boots are not manufactured in Australia, but Deckers accurately labels the
inside of each pair of boots with the country of manufacture. Id. ,i 98. And at least in
recent years, Deckers has displayed country of origin labeling on all footwear boxes
and on its website. Id. When determining whether a statement is deceptive or
misleading, a court considers the statement in context, viewing the product as a
21
whole. See Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 653 F.3d 241, 250-51
(3rd Cir. 2011). The UGG Australia label does not state that the boots were made in
Australia. And because every pair of boots with that label also contains a more
specific country of origin label, no reasonable juror could conclude that Deckers
deceptively marketed its boots as being made in Australia.
D. False Statements on Ugg's Website
Australian Leather also alleges that Deckers made false or misleading
statements about Australian Leather on the UGG website in violation of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. On its website, Deckers educated other retailers and consumers
about its rights in the UGG brand and trademark and maintained an anti-
counterfeiting education page. [189] ,r 32. The website also contained a search
function which allowed consumers to look-up online retailers to see if they were
authorized dealers ofUGG-brand products. Id. ,r 107. If the tool did not recognize the
searched term as an authorized dealer, it generated the message: "[the searched
term] isn't known to our database and cannot be verified as an authorized retailer.
This may be a site that deals in counterfeit products." Id. Deckers maintained another
webpage titled "UGG® is a Brand," which contained information about the UGH
trademark in Australia and stated that "[s]ome Australian companies ... otherwise
circulate misinformation regarding the UGG mark." See [214] ,r 83. None ofDeckers's
counterfeit-education webpages mentioned Australian Leather. [189] ,r 105.
Australian Leather argues that the search function results misrepresent that
it deals in counterfeit products. But when a customer types "Australian Leather" into
22
the site, the tracker generates the same form message that it would for any
unrecognized term. Australian Leather also asserts that the information explaining
the dangers of counterfeit goods misleads consumers by improperly linking
Australian Leather to those dangers. But Deckers never mentions Australian
Leather by name, and there is no reason that a consumer would conclude that those
statements were about Australian Leather. Further, for the reasons discussed, it is
not false or misleading for Deckers to say that the word ugg is not generic in the U.S.
Because the statements Australian Leather points to were not false, and because they
do not mention Australian Leather, Australian Leather cannot prevail on its fraud
claims.
E. Unclean Hands
Australian Leather asserts that Deckers should be barred by the doctrine of
unclean hands from enforcing its trademarks based on its predecessor's abuse of the
®symbol.Deckers owns eleven U.S. trademark registrations that contain the UGG
mark. [189] ,r 94. In May 1996, UGG (at that point UGG Holdings) received a U.S.
Trademark Registration for the text word UGG for footwear and other goods. [1 73]
,r 31. Though it did not own a trademark in the word UGG before 1996, id. ,r 32; [136-
1] ,r,r 123-26, Smith and his companies used the ® symbol next to the word UGG in
various advertisements and documents. [173] ,r,r 33-48. 22 Smith considered his
trademark to be for UGG and thought he was legally required to use the ® symbol
22Deckers raises objections about some of these examples, disputing whether the purported
publication date is accurate. It does not deny, however, that it used the® symbol before 1996.
See [173] 11 33, 36, 39, 41-47.
23
next to it. [204] ,r 26. To Smith's knowledge, none of his compames received a
complaint about improper use of the® symbol. Id. ,r 27. Based on this testimony,
Deckers disputes that the alleged misconduct was willful.
Australian Leather uses the® symbol next to its name as well, and it has never
applied for a trademark registration. [204] ,r,r 28--29. Deckers argues that Australian
Leather's own misuse precludes it from relying on the unclean-hands doctrine. See
Leo Feist, Inc. v. Young, 138 F.2d 972, 975 (7th Cir. 1943) (discussing the doctrine of
unclean hands and noting that "if the defendant has been guilty of conduct more
unconscionable and unworthy than that of the plaintiff, the rule may be relaxed").
Because there are genuine disputes of material facts as to the requisite intent and
the degree of culpability of both parties, summary judgment is inappropriate.
F. Damages
Australian Leather estimates, relying on Oygur's calculations, that if Deckers
did not own or enforce its trademarks, Australian Leather would have sold 75,000
pairs of boots (60,000 short boots and 15,000 long boots) annually to wholesalers in
the United States from 2008--16. [189] ,r 111; [154-11] at 78. He also estimates the
wholesale prices for which Australian Leather could have sold those boots to
American retailers. Id. Oygur bases these estimates on his own experiences; he did
not do any test sales, studies, or surveys to determine the American demand for the
product. [189] ,r 113. While the accuracy and precision of Oygur's calculations may be
questioned, they are based on his personal knowledge of the industry and not so
speculative as to entitle Deckers to summary judgment on the issue.
24
III. Conclusion
Deckers's motion for partial summary judgment is granted with respect to
Australian Leather's claims based on fraud, generic status, and the foreign
equivalents doctrine. The motion as to Australian Leather's damages calculation is
denied. Australian Leather's motion is denied. Deckers's motion for summary
judgment, [137], is granted in part, denied in part. Australian Leather's motion,
[130], is denied.
ENTER:
Manish S. Shah
United States District Judge
Date: September 13, 2018
25

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.1
Eastern Division
Deckers Outdoor Corporation

Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:16−cv−03676
Honorable Manish S. Shah
Australian Leather Pty Ltd, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, December 19, 2019:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Status hearing held. The
court makes it findings of facts and conclusions of law in open court. For the reasons
stated in open court, defendant's unclean hands defense and counterclaim is denied.
Plaintiff has leave to file its motion for entry of permanent injunction by 1/6/20.
Defendant's response is due 1/27/20. Continued status hearing is set for 2/6/20 at 9:30
a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.1
Eastern Division
Deckers Outdoor Corporation

Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:16−cv−03676
Honorable Manish S. Shah
Australian Leather Pty Ltd, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, February 6, 2020:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Status hearing held. The
motion for leave to file reply instanter [293] is granted. For the reasons stated in open
court, the motion for permanent injunction [288] is granted in part. Enter Permanent
Injunction as modified by the court. Enter judgment. Plaintiff's motion for a finding of
liability for attorneys' fees shall be filed by 2/20/20. Response is due 3/23/20; reply is due
4/6/20. Post−judgment motions are due 3/5/20. The parties shall meet and confer on a
proposed briefing schedule and then contact susan_mcclintic@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Notices
mailed. (psm, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

EASTERN DIVISION
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-03676
v.
AUSTRALIAN LEATHER PTY LTD and
ADNAN OYGUR a/k/a EDDIE OYGUR,
Defendants.
FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Deckers Outdoor Corporation ("Deckers") filed
this action against Defendant/Counter-Claimant Australian Leather Pty. Ltd.
("Australian Leather") and Defendant Adnan "Eddie" Oygur ("Oygur") (collectively,
"Defendants") asserting infringement of its UGG trademark and U.S. trademark
registration No. 3,050,925 therefor (Deckers' federal and common law rights in and
to the UGG trademark are referred to hereinafter as the "UGG Trademark"),
common law CARDY™ trademark (the "CARDY Trademark"), and design patent
Nos. D599,999, D616,189, D582,650 and D705,529 ("Deckers' Design Patents").
Specifically, Deckers' Amended Complaint [26] alleges infringement of Deckers' UGG
Trademark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 (Count I), unfair
competition and false designation of origin of Deckers' UGG and CARDY
Trademarks under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II), infringement of
United States Design Patent No. D599,999 (Count III), infringement of United States
Design Patent No. D616,189 (Count IV), infringement of United States Design Patent
No. D582,650 (Count V), infringement of United States Design Patent No. D705,529
(Count VI), violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS
§§ 510, et seq. (Count VII), common law trademark infringement of Deckers' CARDY
Trademark (Count VIII), and common law trademark infringement Deckers' UGG
Trademark (Count IX). [26]. Defendants answered and asserted affirmative defenses
alleging, inter alia, invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of Deckers'
UGG and CARDY Trademarks and Design Patents. [28, 55]. Australian Leather
asserted thirteen counterclaims. [53].
This Court granted-in-part Deckers' motion for partial summary judgement
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). [219].
Deckers and Defendants have stipulated that each of Deckers' Design Patents
is valid, enforceable, and infringed by Defendants. [237].
Deckers and Defendants have stipulated that Deckers' CARDY Trademark is
valid, enforceable, and infringed by Defendants and that Defendants' use of the
CARDY trademark in commerce constitutes (a) unfair competition and false
designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and (b) a violation of the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS §§ 510, et seq. [237].
Deckers and Defendants have further stipulated that Defendants' liability
concerning the common law UGG trademark under Deckers' Amended Complaint
[26] Count II (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), Count VII (Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act), and Count IX (common law trademark infringement) stands or falls
with Defendants' liability under Deckers' trademark infringement Count I (UGG®
federal trademark infringement). [238].

-2-
On May 10, 2019, following a four-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in
favor of Deckers finding that Defendants Australian Leather and Oygur each
willfully infringed Deckers' UGG and CARDY Trademarks and each willfully
counterfeited Deckers' UGG Trademark. The jury awarded statutory damages
against Defendants and recoverable by Deckers for willful trademark counterfeiting
in the amount of $450,000. [270, 271].
Defendants' unclean hands defense ([28] and [55], 8th Affirmative Defense) and
counterclaim ([53], Count I, ,r 64(c), asserted by Counterclaimant Australian Leather

only), and Deckers' claim of willful patent infringement were tried to the Court on
May 10, 2019. On December 19, 2019, the Court entered an Order in favor of Deckers
and against Defendants/Counterclaimant on Defendants' unclean hands defense and
Counterclaimant Australian Leather's counterclaim. [286, 287].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Deckers and
against Defendants on all Counts I - IX of the Amended Complaint [26], and further
that judgment is entered in favor of Deckers and against Australian Leather on all
Counts I - XIII of Australian Leather's Counterclaims [53].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), Plaintiff is awarded statutory
damages in the amount of $450,000 for willful counterfeiting of Deckers' registered
UGG Trademark, for which damages Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
2. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and
attorneys, and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with any
of the foregoing, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from:

-3-
a. Using, or inducing or enabling others to use, the UGG mark or
designation, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation thereof, in any manner and in any format, case or spelling, on
or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or
advertising of any product in the United States or its territories;
b. Using, or inducing or enabling others to use, the CARDY mark or
or in connection with the sale, offer for sale, distribution, or advertising
of any product in the United States or its territories;
c. passing off or falsely designating, or inducing or enabling others to pass
off or falsely designate, any product in United States commerce as an
UGG or CARDY product or as a product produced by, originating from,
or authorized by Deckers;
d. committing any acts, or inducing or enabling others to commit any acts,
calculated to cause consumers in the United States or its territories to
believe that Defendants' products are sold under the authorization,
control or supervision of Deckers, or are sponsored by, approved by, or
otherwise connected or associated with Deckers;
e. shipping, exporting, importing, delivering, holding for sale, transferring
or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or disposing of, in
any manner, products or inventory that satisfy all three of the following
conditions: (i) they are neither manufactured by or for Deckers nor

-4-
authorized by Deckers, (ii) they are to be distributed, marketed,
advertised, offered for sale, or sold in United States commerce, and (iii)
they bear, or are distributed, marketed, advertised, offered for sale or
sold in connection with, any UGG or CARDY Trademarks or any
reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation thereof;
f. offering for sale or selling in, exporting to, and/or importing into United
States commerce any products not authorized by Deckers and that
include any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the designs
claimed in Deckers' Design Patents until the expiration of the applicable
patent(s); and
g. aiding, abetting, contributing to, enabling, inducing, or otherwise
assisting others in infringing Deckers' Design Patents until the
expiration of the applicable patent(s).
3. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all
other persons who are in active concert or participation with any of them, shall
immediately and permanently cease use of all marketing, promotional, and
other materials (whether physical or electronic) bearing the designation
"UGG" or "Cardy'', in any format, case or spelling, as, or as part of, a
trademark, service mark, trade name, label, or product name, description or
designation in or intentionally directed to the United States or its territories.
Defendants shall use available geo-blocking or geo-fencing technology to
prevent marketing, promotional, and other social media posts or
communications bearing the designation ''UGG" or "Cardy'', in any format, case

-5-
or spelling, as, or as part of, a trademark, service mark, trade name, label, or
product name, description or designation from reaching the United States or
its territories.
4. As the prevailing party, Deckers is awarded its costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(d)(l).
This is a Final Judgment against Defendants.
DATED: February 6, 2020

Manish S. Shah
-6-
Case:
ILND 450 (Rev. Case: in a 20-2166
1:16-cv-03676
10/13) Judgment Document:
Document#:
Civil Action 2971-2
Filed: Page: 40
02/06/20 Filed:
Page 08/18/2020
1 of 1 PagelD #:11619

FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Deckers Outdoor Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v. Judge Manish Shah
Australian Leather Pty, Ltd., et al. ,
Defendants.
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):
□ in favor of plaintiff(s)
and against defendant(s)
in the amount of $ ,
which
□ includes pre–judgment interest.
□ does not include pre–judgment interest.
Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment.
Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).
□ in favor of defendant(s)
and against plaintiff(s)
.
Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).
other: in favor of plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation in the amount of $450,000 and the
attached permanent injunction, and against defendants Australian Leather Pty, Ltd. and Adnan Oygur.
This action was (check one):
tried by a jury with Judge Manish Shah presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict.
tried by Judge Manish Shah without a jury and the above decision was reached.
decided by Judge Manish Shah on a motion.
Date: 2/6/2020 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court
/s/Susan McClintic , Deputy Clerk

Case: 20-2166
Case: 1:16-cv-03676 Document:
Document#: 297-11-2
FiledPage: 41 Page
: 02/06/20 Filed:1 08/18/2020
of 6 PagelD #:11620

EASTERN DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V.

AUSTRALIAN LEATHER PTY LTD and
Defendants.
FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Deckers Outdoor Corporation ("Deckers") filed
this action against Defendant/Counter-Claimant Australian Leather Pty. Ltd.
("Australian Leather") and Defendant Adnan "Eddie" Oygur ("Oygur") (collectively,
"Defendants") asserting infringement of its UGG trademark and U.S. trademark
registration No. 3,050,925 therefor (Deckers' federal and common law rights in and
to the UGG trademark are referred to hereinafter as the "UGG Trademark"),
common law CARDY™ trademark (the "CARDY Trademark"), and design patent
Nos. D599,999, D616,189, D582,650 and D705,529 ("Deckers' Design Patents").
Specifically, Deckers' Amended Complaint [26] alleges infringement of Deckers' UGG
Trademark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 (Count I), unfair
competition and false designation of origin of Deckers' UGG and CARDY
Trademarks under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II), infringement of
United States Design Patent No. D599,999 (Count III), infringement of United States
Design Patent No. D616,189 (Count IV), infringement of United States Design Patent
Case: 20-2166
Document#: 297-11-2
FiledPage: 42 Page
: 02/06/20 Filed:2 08/18/2020
of 6 PagelD #:11621
No. D582,650 (Count V), infringement of United States Design Patent No. D705,529
(Count VI), violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS
§§ 510, et seq. (Count VII), common law trademark infringement of Deckers' CARDY
Trademark (Count VIII), and common law trademark infringement Deckers' UGG
Trademark (Count IX). [26]. Defendants answered and asserted affirmative defenses
alleging, inter alia, invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of Deckers'
UGG and CARDY Trademarks and Design Patents. [28, 55]. Australian Leather
asserted thirteen counterclaims. [53].
This Court granted-in-part Deckers' motion for partial summary judgement
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). [219].
Deckers and Defendants have stipulated that each of Deckers' Design Patents
is valid, enforceable, and infringed by Defendants. [237].
Deckers and Defendants have stipulated that Deckers' CARDY Trademark is
valid, enforceable, and infringed by Defendants and that Defendants' use of the
CARDY trademark in commerce constitutes (a) unfair competition and false
designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and (b) a violation of the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS §§ 510, et seq. [237].
Deckers and Defendants have further stipulated that Defendants' liability
concerning the common law UGG trademark under Deckers' Amended Complaint
[26] Count II (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), Count VII (Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act), and Count IX (common law trademark infringement) stands or falls
with Defendants' liability under Deckers' trademark infringement Count I (UGG®
federal trademark infringement). [238].

-2-
Case: 20-2166
Document#: 297-11-2
FiledPage: 43 Page
: 02/06/20 Filed:3 08/18/2020
of 6 PagelD #:11622
On May 10, 2019, following a four-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in
favor of Deckers finding that Defendants Australian Leather and Oygur each
willfully infringed Deckers' UGG and CARDY Trademarks and each willfully
counterfeited Deckers' UGG Trademark. The jury awarded statutory damages
against Defendants and recoverable by Deckers for willful trademark counterfeiting
in the amount of $450,000. [270, 271] .
Defendants' unclean hands defense ([28] and [55], 8th Affirmative Defense) and
counterclaim ([53], Count I, , 64(c), asserted by Counterclaimant Australian Leather
only), and Deckers' claim of willful patent infringement were tried to the Court on
May 10, 2019. On December 19, 2019, the Court entered an Order in favor of Deckers
and against Defendants/Counterclaimant on Defendants' unclean hands defense and
Counterclaimant Australian Leather's counterclaim. [286, 287].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Deckers and
against Defendants on all Counts I - IX of the Amended Complaint [26], and further
that judgment is entered in favor of Deckers and against Australian Leather on all
Counts I - XIII of Australian Leather's Counterclaims [53] .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), Plaintiff is awarded statutory
damages in the amount of $450,000 for willful counterfeiting of Deckers' registered
UGG Trademark, for which damages Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
2. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and
attorneys, and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with any
of the foregoing, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from:

-3-
Case: 20-2166
Document#: 297-11-2
FiledPage: 44 Page
: 02/06/20 Filed:4 08/18/2020
of 6 PagelD #:11623
a. Using, or inducing or enabling others to use, the UGG mark or
or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or
advertising of any product in the United States or its territories;
b. Using, or inducing or enabling others to use, the CARDY mark or
or in connection with the sale, offer for sale, distribution, or advertising
of any product in the United States or its territories;
c. passing off or falsely designating, or inducing or enabling others to pass
off or falsely designate, any product in United States commerce as an
UGG or CARDY product or as a product produced by, originating from,
or authorized by Deckers;
d. committing any acts, or inducing or enabling others to commit any acts,
calculated to cause consumers in the United States or its territories to
believe that Defendants' products are sold under the authorization,
control or supervision of Deckers, or are sponsored by, approved by, or
otherwise connected or associated with Deckers;
e. shipping, exporting, importing, delivering, holding for sale, transferring
or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or disposing of, in
any manner, products or inventory that satisfy all three of the following
conditions: (i) they are neither manufactured by or for Deckers nor

-4-
Case: 20-2166
Document#: 297-11-2
FiledPage: 45 Page
: 02/06/20 Filed:5 08/18/2020
of 6 PagelD #:11624
authorized by Deckers, (ii) they are to be distributed, marketed,
advertised, offered for sale, or sold in United States commerce, and (iii)
they bear, or are distributed, marketed, advertised, offered for sale or
sold in connection with, any UGG or CARDY Trademarks or any
reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation thereof;
f. offering for sale or selling in, exporting to, and/or importing into United
States commerce any products not authorized by Deckers and that
include any reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the designs
claimed in Deckers' Design Patents until the expiration of the applicable
patent(s); and
g. aiding, abetting, contributing to, enabling, inducing, or otherwise
assisting others in infringing Deckers' Design Patents until the
expiration of the applicable patent(s).
3. Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all
other persons who are in active concert or participation with any of them, shall
immediately and permanently cease use of all marketing, promotional, and
other materials (whether physical or electronic) bearing the designation
"UGG" or "Cardy", in any format, case or spelling, as, or as part of, a
trademark, service mark, trade name, label, or product name, description or
designation in or intentionally directed to the United States or its territories.
Defendants shall use available geo-blocking or geo-fencing technology to
prevent marketing, promotional, and other social media posts or
communications bearing the designation "UGG" or "Cardy'', in any format, case

-5-
Case: 20-2166
Document#: 297-11-2
FiledPage: 46 Page
: 02/06/20 Filed:6 08/18/2020
of 6 PagelD #:11625
or spelling, as, or as part of, a trademark, service mark, trade name, label, or
product name, description or designation from reaching the United States or
its territories.
4. As the prevailing party, Deckers is awarded its costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(d)(l).
This is a Final Judgment against Defendants.
DATED: February 6, 2020

Manish S. Shah
-6-

EASTERN DIVISION
DECKERS OUTDOOR CORP.,
Plaintiff,
No. 16 CV 3676
v.
Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, [311], [312], are denied.
Defendants' motions to remit the jury award and waive the bond requirement to stay
execution of the money judgment pending appeal, [309], [320], are denied. Deckers's
motion for attorney's fees, [299], is granted; Deckers is awarded a reasonable
attorney's fee. Defendants' objections to Deckers's bill of costs, [316], [317], are
sustained in part. Defendants are taxed $33,304.26. Defendants' motion regarding
time to file a Notice of Appeal, [308], is denied.
STATEMENT
Background
Defendants Australian Leather and Eddie Oygur, the company's owner,

manufactured boots that infringed plaintiff Deckers's design patents and offered
them for sale over the internet from Australia into the United States. In addition to
design patents, Deckers owned a registered trademark in the word "UGG" for, among
other things, footwear, and a common-law trademark in "Cardy" for footwear.
Defendants sold their products using the UGG name-calling their boots ugg boots
and labeling them in a manner substantially indistinguishable from Deckers's
registered mark. A jury found defendants liable for willful counterfeiting and willful
trademark infringement of the UGG mark. Defendants stipulated to patent-design
infringement and to infringement of Deckers' s Cardy mark. The jury found the Cardy
infringement to be willful. The jury awarded $450,000 in statutory damages, and I
entered a permanent injunction against defendants.
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Trademark Willfulness
Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of willful

infringement of the Cardy mark [312] is denied. 1 Judgment as a matter of law is
appropriate if "a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis
to find for the party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(l); see Turubchuk v. S. fll.
Asphalt Co., 958 F.3d 541, 548 (7th Cir. 2020). I view the evidence at trial in the light
most favorable to the verdict. Turubchuk, 958 F.3d at 548.
The jury reasonably found that defendants willfully infringed the Cardy
trademark. Defendants stipulated to infringement, and although defendant Oygur
claimed not to care what Deckers was doing, that testimony supported rather than
detracted from the claim of willfulness. Based on Oygur's demeanor throughout his
testimony, a jury could view his statement as the rhetoric of someone who did care
what Deckers was doing, but feared revealing his own weakness by acknowledging
Deckers's dominance. Oygur came off as someone who was eager to hurt Deckers if
given the opportunity. A jury could credit Oygur's passion for his business as evidence
that he was attentive to the industry, while at the same time reasonably discredit his
claims of ignorance. The Cardy trademark and design-patent infringement (both
established by stipulation) demonstrated that defendants took the designs for the
Cardy boots. Even if the jury credited Oygur's claim that a customer presented
samples of the infringing boots to Oygur for manufacture, Trial Tr. 384-85, the
surrounding circumstances supported an inference that defendants knew or learned
that the boot and its Cardy name belonged to Deckers. The term Cardy appeared only
briefly on defendants' website, and defendants stopped selling the boots in the United
States after they were sued, but a jury could easily see defendants' use as not
coincidental. A jury was not required to accept Oygur's testimony that Cardy referred
to anything knitted, and it was not credible that defendants would use that word for
a boot independently of Deckers. The reasonable inference is that defendants
purposefully appropriated the term.
This is not a matter of Deckers failing to refute defendants' denials and failing
to present evidence to meet its burden. Deckers demonstrated that Cardy was one of
its hero brands (an internal term, but one based on outward success, Trial Tr. 74)-
supporting an inference that an industry professional like Oygur knew about it and
his claims that he didn't were false. Defendants' motive to willfully infringe was
apparent. Oygur repeatedly conveyed his disdain for the brand UGG 2 in the United
States, and it was entirely reasonable for a jury to find that he willfully targeted
1 Bracketed numbers refer to entries on the district court docket. Referenced page numbers
are taken from the CM/ECF header placed at the top of filings, except for citations to the trial
transcript.
2 I use all capital letters (UGG) when referring to the brand. I use lowercase letters (ugg)
when referring to sheepskin boots generally.
2
Deckers's marks, including Cardy. His attempt to shift responsibility onto his staff,
while at the same time boasting about his skill in the industry, was not persuasive
(or so a jury could reasonably conclude).
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or for a New Trial on Counterfeiting
Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial on

counterfeiting [311] is denied. The font, size, and placement of the word UGG on
defendants' label was substantially indistinguishable from Deckers's mark. And
defendants' use of "Australian Leather" in smaller, nearby text was not
distinguishing in context. Defendants' label looked like a copy or a knock-off-a
counterfeit. No mental gymnastics were necessary for the jury to find defendants
liable, and the manifest weight of the evidence was in Deckers's favor here.
Defendants argue that the verdict is contrary to common sense. But when
comparing the two labels as used in the market, it is sensible to look at defendants'
and see a counterfeit. There was evidence that other Australian competitors used the
word ugg similarly on labels, [314-3], but the question here was whether defendants'
use in the United States amounted to counterfeiting of Deckers's mark. 3 Deckers's
ownership and use of the brand in the United States was well known, and to use a
similar font, size, and placement on a label shipped into the United States was an act
of counterfeiting. The verdict did not depend on an abstract comparison, but was fully
supported by the reality of the U.S. marketplace-where defendants introduced their
product using a word that was substantially indistinguishable from Deckers's mark
and where the U.S. consumer overwhelmingly understood the word to be a brand
name. See Trial Tr. 209-10, 228.
Defendants renew their objections to the jury instructions on trademark

counterfeiting. At trial, I relied on the Eleventh Circuit's pattern jury instruction that
describes a counterfeit as "a copy that is identical or substantially indistinguishable
from" Deckers's trademark. Pattern Civ. Jury Instr. 11th Cir. 10.6 (2019). 4 The
statute defines "counterfeit" as "a spurious mark which is identical with, or
substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark." 15 U.S.C. § 1127. The
Eleventh Circuit pattern instruction does not include "spurious." Pattern Civ. Jury
Instr. 11th Cir. 10.6. Defendants wanted the jury instructed that the mark must be
spurious, defined as deceptively suggesting an erroneous origin of the goods when
considered in the marketplace (not in an abstract comparison). [245] at 116.
3Perhaps the other Australian manufacturers are also free riding on Deckers's brand and
using UGG as a mark to reach the lucrative international tourist business.
4The Committee on Pattern Civil Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit has not proposed
an instruction on trademark counterfeiting.
3
Here, there was no dispute that defendants had no permission to use Deckers's
trademark (and defendants specifically advised against having the jury consider their
lack of authorization to use Deckers's mark). [245] at 115 (noting that the second and
third elements described in All Star Championship Racing, Inc. v. O'Reilly Auto.
Stores, Inc., 940 F.Supp.2d 850, 866 (C.D. Ill. 2013), are not in dispute and the jury
need not consider them). As I concluded at the pretrial conference, the word
"spurious" was not doing any work here. Defendants' objective, but not subjective,
deception requirement would have unnecessarily increased complexity in the jury
instructions. See [245] at 116 (conceding that defendants can be liable without proof
of "any particular level of intent"). Defendants' proposal was incomplete because it
would have required adding that they could be liable even if they did not intend to
deceive-all for an issue that wouldn't have been helpful to the jury. An admittedly
unauthorized mark that is a substantially indistinguishable copy of Deckers's mark
would necessarily be spurious-it is counterfeiting to take a mark without permission
and use it in a substantially indistinguishable way from Deckers's mark. Such
conduct objectively deceives the consumer. Defendants' instruction and the
introduction of a concept that required additional explication about mental states
would have added to already cumbersome jury instructions. ''Unless it is necessary
to give an instruction, it is necessary not to give it, so that the important instructions
stand out and are remembered." United States v. Hill, 252 F.3d 919, 923 (7th Cir.
2001). The issue for this jury was whether defendants' use of UGG was a mark-copy
at all-defendants had arguments that they were using UGG not as a source-
identifier or a reproduction of Deckers's mark, but as a description of the product
itself in Australian vernacular. The jury instructions captured that issue accurately,
see [256] at 74-75. "Spuriousness" was an immaterial concept for this trial.
Defendants object that the instructions did not require the jury to consider how
defendants used UGG in the marketplace, and allowed the jury to make an
inappropriately abstract side-by-side comparison. I phrased the instruction
permissively: ''You may consider how the Defendant used 'UGG' in the marketplace."
[262] at 28; see Trial Tr. 618--25. The choice of phrasing was not based on a need to
distinguish between the permissive and mandatory, but to address the defendants'
fear of an abstract versus marketplace comparison. Defendants' original proposal did
not use the word "must," but focused on avoiding abstract appearances, and my choice
of phrasing addressed that concern. [245] at 114. Like "spuriousness," this issue was
also far afield from the actual issue for the jury as to counterfeiting-namely, whether
defendants had copied a mark or simply described their product without reference to
Deckers's brand. The trial was not abstract. It was about actual boots in the
marketplace, Australian surfer history, and brand recognition in the United States
for Deckers's name. The counterfeiting instructions accurately stated the law, and
the language allowing the jury to consider use in the marketplace adequately
equipped it to evaluate defendants' arguments.
4
The deviations from defendants' proposed instruction on counterfeiting were

harmless. If a jury concluded that defendants used UGG as a mark, the same evidence
would lead a reasonable jury to inevitably conclude that such use was a spurious copy.
Defendants were well aware of Deckers's UGG brand, Trial Tr. 416, and its power in
the global market. In the United States-the only market where deceptive suggestion
was relevant-UGG is a brand, and to use it as defendants did necessarily would
deceive American consumers about the origin of the goods. No one suggested an
abstract comparison of fonts or labels, and the instructions as given gave defendants
ample room to argue that they had not copied Deckers's mark. Defendants'
instruction would not have changed the outcome of the trial.
Motion to Remit Jury Award
Defendants' motion to remit the $450,000 jury award, or, alternatively, for a
new trial to determine damages, is denied.
In deciding whether a damages award is excessive, courts consider three

factors: whether the award is "monstrously excessive"; whether there is a rational
connection between the award and the evidence; and whether the award is roughly
comparable to awards made in similar cases. Adams v. City of Chicago, 798 F.3d 539,
543 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting G.G. v. Grindle, 665 F.3d 795, 798 (7th Cir. 2011)). A
monstrously excessive award is one that is the product of "passion and prejudice." Id.
(quoting Fleming v. Cty. of Kane, 898 F.2d 553, 561 (7th Cir. 1990)). The monstrously
excessive factor and the rational connection factor both describe the same inquiry,
which is whether the jury's verdict was irrational. Id. 5
I instructed the jury that, if it found that defendants' counterfeiting of the UGG
mark was willful, it could award statutory damages up to $2,000,000. [262] at 29; see
15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2). I told the jury that the purpose of statutory damages is to
"compensate the trademark owner, penalize the counterfeiter, and deter future
trademark counterfeiting." [262] at 29. Defendants did not object to that instruction,
either during the jury instruction conference or when I gave the instruction. Trial Tr.
608, 781. During closing arguments, Deckers asked the jury to award $500,000, and
defendants did not suggest an alternative amount of statutory damages. Trial Tr.
724, 725-59.
5I disagree with Deckers that defendants waived their right to ask for remittitur of the jury
award by not giving the jury an alternative amount to award. Deckers does not convincingly
point to any rule requiring a party to preserve a jury remittitur argument. See Smith v.
Altman, No. 12. C 4546, 2015 WL 5610670, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2015) ("[T]he court may
consider questions of remittitur sua sponte.").
5
A properly instructed jury applied the relevant factors, and its award was not
monstrously excessive or irrational. Although defendants correctly observe that this
case was somewhat atypical because it involved a relatively low number of sales, a
reasonable jury could have emphasized the need to sanction and deter defendants
based on the sheer willfulness defendants displayed. As discussed above, Oygur's
demeanor and testimony suggested he harbored hostility toward Deckers and acted
deliberately to damage its brand. The jury could have rationally sought to punish and
deter that conduct. Moreover, while defendants had no obligation to give the jury an
exact number, they did have the opportunity to explain their theory of how the jury
should apply the statutory damages factors and chose not to. That defendants didn't
even comment on Deckers's suggested award of $500,000 during closing argument
suggests that a number below that amount could not have been irrational or
monstrously excessive.
Defendants argue that the jury award lacks a rational connection to the
evidence because they estimate Deckers's actual damages to be only about $1,200. To
be sure, "revenue lost is one factor to consider" in reviewing statutory damages.
Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2014). But there need
not be a "direct correlation between statutory damages and actual damages." Id.
Congress created statutory damages in the Lanham Act because proving actual
damages in counterfeiting cases is "extremely difficult if not impossible." Louis
Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 110 n.27 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting
S. Rep. No. 104-177, at 10 (1995)). As I instructed the jury, statutory damages not
only compensate the injured party, but also "discourage wrongful conduct." F. W.
Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, 344 U.S. 228, 233 (1952). Here, a reasonable
jury could have been motivated by the need to punish and deter, rather than
compensate. See Psihoyos, 748 F.3d at 127 (in copyright case, denying remittitur
where "jury may have viewed [defendant] as a repeat infringer in need of
deterrence").
Finally, the award here falls within the reasonable range of counterfeiting
awards in similar cases. While jury awards in analogous cases provide a reference
point for assessing reasonableness, an award in another case "doesn't have to be" an
"exact match" to be roughly comparable. Vega v. Chi. Park Dist., 954 F.3d 996, 1008-
09 (7th Cir. 2020). Counterfeiting awards in other cases range from well below the
award here, to the statutory maximum of $2 million. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v.
Ozwear Connection Pty Ltd., No. CV 14-2307, 2014 WL 4679001, at *12 (C.D. Cal.
Sept. 18, 2014) (awarding $2 million for using UGG mark on footwear where
defendants "willfully and knowingly used the UGG counterfeit mark on counterfeit
footwear that was sold in the United States through Defendants' website"); see also
H-D U.S.A., LLC v. SunFrog, LLC, 311 F.Supp.3d 1000, 1049 (E.D. Wis. 2018)
(awarding $300,000 per mark); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. C.H. Rhodes, Inc., No. 08-
CV-0069, 2010 WL 1196124, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2010) ($500,000 per mark),
adopted by 2010 WL 1633455 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2010); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v.
6
Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., No. CV 02-01089, 2003 WL 23705746, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7,
2003) ($300,000 per mark); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Jones, No. 99 CIV. 2359, 2002
WL 596354, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2002) (recommending $500,000 per mark).
The jury's award was rational, and defendants' motion to remit it is denied.
Motion to Waive the Bond Requirement to Stay Execution of the Judgment
Any time after a money judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay of that
judgment by providing "a bond or other security." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b); Dillon v. City
of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 905 (7th Cir. 1988). 6 A court may waive the bond
requirement, but waiver is appropriate only "if the appellant has a clearly
demonstrated ability to satisfy the judgment in the event the appeal is unsuccessful"
and there is "no other concern that the appellee's rights will be compromised by a
failure adequately to secure the judgment." In re Carlson, 224 F.3d 716, 719 (7th Cir.
2000); see also 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2905 (3d ed.) (the burden is on the party seeking waiver "to demonstrate
that the judgment is not at risk").
District courts consider five factors to determine whether to waive the bond
requirement: (1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) the amount of time
required to obtain a judgment after it is affirmed on appeal; (3) the degree of
confidence that the district court has in the availability of funds to pay the judgment;
(4) whether the defendant's ability to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of a
bond would be a waste of money; and (5) whether the defendant is in such a precarious
financial situation that the requirement to post a bond would place other creditors of
the defendant in an insecure position. Dillon, 866 F.2d at 904-05. The point of these
factors, and the rule itself, is to ensure recovery for the party who prevails on appeal
while protecting the judgment debtor from losing money if the decision is reversed.
In re Nassau Cty. Strip Search Cases, 783 F.3d 414, 418 (2d Cir. 2015) (adopting the
Dillon factors). The bond requirement will not be waived "solely on the basis that it
will pose a severe financial hardship" on the appellant, unless "some other form of
security is offered." See Wright & Miller, supra,§ 2905.
Here, defendants have not shown that they will be able to satisfy the judgment
if their appeal is unsuccessful. Defendants do not provide any reassurance that the
judgment is not at risk-they do not address the first four factors of the Dillon test
at all. Defendants rely solely on the fifth factor, claiming that, if I do not waive the
6Rule 62 was amended in December 2018; Rule 62(b) used to be Rule 62(d), and, under the
new rule, a party may stay a money judgment by posting a bond or "other security." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 62 advisory committee's notes to 2018 amendment. See generally Deutsche Bank Nat'l
Tr. Co. v. Cornish, 759 Fed. App'x 503, 506 (7th Cir. 2019) (discussing 2018 amendments to
Rule 62).
7
bond requirement, they will be forced into bankruptcy, their creditors will be put in
an insecure position, and they will be unable to pursue an appeal. There is some
tension between the first four factors of the Dillon test, which get at ensuring the
judgment is not at risk, and the fifth factor, on which defendants rely. But I am not
convinced that defendants have sufficiently met the fifth factor in any event. The only
creditor defendants identify is Westpac Bank, and defendants do not sufficiently
establish how the bank-a secured creditor-would be harmed if defendants had to
post a bond. [361] at 8. The Dillon factors, taken as a whole, weigh against waiving
the bond requirement. Defendants have failed to meet their burden, and their motion
to waive the bond requirement is denied. See In re Carlson, 224 F.3d at 719 (denying
waiver where there was "every reason to lack confidence" that the appellant would
"pay up eventually"); cf. In re Nassau Cty. Strip Search Cases, 783 F.3d at 418
(waiving bond requirement where appellant had "demonstrated the existence of
appropriated funds" that would be available without substantial delay or difficulty);
Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, 2008 WL 4542725, at *2 (N.D.
Ill. July 24, 2008) (same, where it was "clear" that defendant "ha[d] more than enough
cash on hand" to satisfy the judgment).
Deckers argues that, as a threshold matter, defendants must establish that a

stay is warranted at all, relying on the test typically applied to staying injunctions on
appeal. That test is similar to the test for a preliminary injunction, and considers the
moving party's likelihood of success on appeal, the irreparable harm that will occur
to either side if the stay is granted or denied in error, and whether the public interest
favors one side or the other. In re A & F Enterprises, Inc. II, 742 F.3d 763, 766 (7th
Cir. 2014).
Defendants need not meet this standard. As I read defendants' motion, they
seek a stay only of the money judgment, not the permanent injunction. See [321] at 1
(asking court to "stay execution of the jury award"). The test Deckers refers to applies
when a court is deciding whether to stay a judgment "other than a money judgment."
Venckiene v. United States, 929 F.3d 843, 853 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 379
(2019). Different standards apply to the stay of an injunction and a stay of a monetary
judgment pending appeal. See Wright & Miller, supra,§ 3954 (noting that Rule 62(b)
governs the stay of a money judgment, while Rule 62(d) and Appellate Rule 8 provide
the balancing test for a stay of injunctive relief pending appeal). That is, courts must
conduct a balancing test when evaluating a stay of an injunction pending appeal, but
a party "is entitled to a stay of a money judgment as a matter of right if he posts a
bond in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)." Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Broad.-
Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S. Ct. 1, 3 (1966) (Harlan, J., in chambers); see also
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Cornish, 759 Fed. App'x 503, 507 (7th Cir. 2019) ("If
the bond was posted, then, there was no need for the court to inquire, at the very
outset of the appeal, into its potential merits.").
8
Put differently, the Dillon factors function as an alternative to the balancing

test; the two tests are not cumulative separate hurdles that the party seeking a stay
of a money judgment must overcome. See In re Nassau Cty. Strip Search Cases, 783
F.3d at 418 (noting that the Dillon factors, "in contrast to the traditional stay factors,"
more directly address the "primary purpose" of Rule 62 (emphasis added)); see also
Acosta v. Timberline S. LLC, No. 16-CV-11552, 2018 WL 3839380, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
Aug 13, 2018) ("This four-factor test does not appear to be applicable to a motion to
stay the enforcement of a monetary judgment pending appeal."). The question facing
a district court when a party seeks to stay the execution of a money judgment pending
appeal is solely whether the party has sufficiently established that the judgment is
not at risk under the Dillon test, such that the party may obtain an automatic stay
without posting a bond or other security.
Because defendants cannot satisfy the Dillon factors, their motion to waive the
bond requirement is denied. Defendants may stay execution of the monetary
judgment by posting a bond or other security.
Motion for Attorney's Fees
Under both the trademark and patent statutes, attorney's fees can be awarded
to a prevailing party in an exceptional case. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Deckers asks for an exceptional-case finding and an award of attorney's fees because
defendants acted willfully. The jury concluded that defendants' trademark violations
were willful, 7 and the issue of willfulness as to the patent-design claim was reserved
for the court.
Defendants' design-patent infringement was willful. By the time defendants

offered the infringing designs for sale in the United States, Oygur had actual
knowledge of the U.S. patents. He had received a letter that referred to U.S. patents,
albeit in small print. Trial Tr. 404. It was more likely than not that he knew of the
patents when manufacturing the boots. The infringing boots were precise copies with
correct button size and placement. Although Oygur denied knowing about the
patents, and described a business model of copying styles from samples (without
regard to the existence of design patents), it can be inferred that Oygur looked at the
patented design to complete his manufacturing. He claimed his samples were
incomplete and did not have buttons, yet he successfully duplicated the patented
designs. The willfulness with which defendants infringed Deckers's trademarks along
with Oygur's disdain for Deckers's brand demonstrate an intent to disregard
Deckers's intellectual property rights. Defendants used "UGG" on non-boot products
7 The evidence of willful counterfeiting supports a finding that defendants intentionally

counterfeited. Defendants knew about Deckers's mark, created an indistinguishable copy of
it for their own products, and used the copy as a mark to trade on Deckers's creation of a
global market in the name UGG. This was intentional counterfeiting.
9
specifically because Deckers had created global demand for the word. See Trial Tr.
409, 422-23, 451. Oygur's explanation that he couldn't afford non-UGG labels, Trial
Tr. 435-39, was incredible. Defendants had the wherewithal to purchase labels in at
least two colors, id., and they shipped some products without any labels at all. See
Trial Tr. 496--97. When defendants' bank advised them to disclaim any connection to
Deckers, defendants refused, further demonstrating a specific intent to trade on
Deckers's intellectual property. See Trial Tr. 478. Using all of this evidence to infer
willfulness toward design-patent infringement is not based on a prohibited
propensity inference, Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(l), but on a direct inference of intent
toward this particular plaintiff. Across the board, defendants intended to infringe on
Deckers's intellectual property. When combined with the evidence of Oygur's
knowledge of the U.S. patent and the method of copying, the design-patent
infringement was no accident-it was willful.
An exceptional case is one that "stands out from others with respect to the
substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing
law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was
litigated." Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554
(2014). District courts consider whether a case is exceptional on a case-by-case basis,
considering the totality of the circumstances. Id. (patent); see LHO Chicago River,
L.L.C. v. Perillo, 942 F.3d 384, 388-89 (7th Cir. 2019) (trademark). Courts consider
the frivolousness, motivation, and objective unreasonableness of the defendants'
position, along with deterrence. Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. at 554 n.6; Fogerty v.
Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994). A case is exceptional if "the acts of
infringement are 'malicious, fraudulent, deliberate or willful."' BASF Corp. v. Old
World Trading Co., 41 F.3d 1081, 1099 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Roulo v. Russ Berrie
& Co., Inc., 886 F.2d 931, 942 (7th Cir. 1989)).
Defendants' litigation strategy was aggressive (asserting many defenses and

counterclaims) and many of their arguments were unsuccessful. Only as trial
approached did defendants finally streamline issues by entering into stipulations,
including a stipulation of patent infringement. 8 But this aggressive strategy was not
so unreasonable as to make the case exceptional. The central dispute-whether UGG
can be a trademark in the United States-was not frivolous (indeed, the history of
the boot, the origins of the term, and the early use of the circle R before registration
made for some interesting issues).
Nevertheless, defendants' willfulness makes the case exceptional. Willfulness

alone can justify an exceptional-case finding, and the totality of the circumstances
8 Defendants' earlier offers of judgment under Rule 68 would have simplified some issues,
but were not themselves reasonable compromises. The later withdrawal of claims,
stipulations of infringement, and the jury's verdict demonstrated the strength of Deckers's
position.
10
here further supports the finding. Defendants' hostility to Deckers's intellectual

property rights drove much of their conduct, and that motivation puts the willfulness
of the infringement into exceptional territory. Defendants' infringing activity was
small-scale, but its point was to pose an existential threat to Deckers's brand. The
dollar value of sales was low, but the stakes were high and intentionally so.
Defendants' failure to implement the permanent injunction is another sign that even
in defeat defendants must be compelled to respect Deckers's rights in the United
States. See [332]; [364]. One goal of fee-shifting in exceptional cases is deterrence,
and defendants ought to be deterred from the kind of willful infringement that
occurred here.
Defendants sold a mere handful of infringing goods in the United States. The
jury's damages award and an additional fee award will (if successfully enforced in
Australia) likely affect defendants' ability to stay in business. These circumstances
raise a concern of over-deterrence. But the fee award will be checked by the court's
review for reasonableness, and ultimately, the defendants chose this path when they
willfully infringed with a specific motivation to undermine Deckers's brand.
Defendants could have sought to preserve and promote Australian heritage without
entering the U.S. market with a copy of Deckers's mark and stolen designs. On
balance, then, an exceptional-case finding is appropriate, and Deckers is awarded a
reasonable attorney's fee. 9
Bill of Costs
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) creates a "strong presumption" that the
prevailing party will recover the costs listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Montanez v. Simon,
755 F.3d 547, 557 (7th Cir. 2014). The cost must be both "reasonable and necessary
to the litigation" for the prevailing party to recover it. Little v. Mitsubishi Motors N.
Am., Inc., 514 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2008). The district court has discretion to
determine whether, and in what amount, costs are assigned to the losing party.
Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006).
Deckers initially sought $66,372.53 in costs, but, in response to defendants'

objections, revised its bill of costs and now seeks $41,444.33. [336-3]. Two issues
remain unresolved. First, defendants argue that they shouldn't pay the costs Deckers
incurred video recording depositions.
Video recording depositions (in addition to transcribing them) is a taxable cost

under Rule 54 and§ 1920, so long as the recording was reasonable and necessary.
Little, 514 F.3d at 702. It was reasonable and necessary for Deckers to record Oygur's
9Although defendants' counterfeiting was intentional, I decline to award fees under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117(b), because Deckers opted for statutory damages. See K & N Eng'g, Inc. v. Bulat, 510
F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2007); [256] at 75-79.
11
depositions. There was potential for the video deposition of Oygur-Australian

Leather's owner and a named defendant-to be an important piece of evidence at
trial, especially since Oygur lived in Australia. But Deckers has not sufficiently
justified recording the other depositions, or, in the case of recorded depositions
ordered by defendants, obtaining a copy of those videos. Attorney convenience is an
insufficient justification for obtaining video depositions. Defendants are thus taxed
only the costs Deckers incurred videotaping Oygur's depositions on April 25 and 26,
2017. Those costs are $182.05; $185.90; $2170; and $1872.50. [316-2] at 4-5; [336-3]
at 7-8. Defendants' objections to the costs of recording the remaining depositions are
sustained. Defendants are taxed $33,304.26. 10
Next, defendants argue that they made five offers of judgment under Rule 68.
Since Deckers rejected those offers, defendants say that Deckers must pay
defendants' post-offer costs. At least 14 days before trial, a defendant may serve "an
offer to allow judgment on specified terms" on an opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a).
If the plaintiff rejects the offer, and the judgment that the plaintiff ultimately obtains
is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the plaintiff must pay the costs
incurred after the offer was made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(d). Defendants bear the burden
of showing that the Rule 68 offer was more favorable than the judgment. Reiter v.
MTA NYC Transit Auth., 457 F.3d 224,231 (2d Cir. 2006).
The parties disagree about whether defendants' settlement offers were

actually offers of judgment under Rule 68. They were offers of judgment. Each
document was titled "Offer of Judgment," and stated, "Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
68," defendants "hereby make an offer of judgment to settle." [318-1] at 2; [318-2] at
2; [318-3] at 2; [318-4] at 2; [318-5] at 2. The offers included the word "judgment" and
invoked Rule 68. Generally, when a plaintiff accepts a settlement offer, ''by operation
of Rule 68," the result is a "judgment being entered." Paz v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs.,
LLC, 924 F.3d 949, 955 (7th Cir. 2019); cf. Swanigan v. City of Chicago, 775 F.3d 953,
961 (7th Cir. 2015) (declining to treat document as an offer of judgment under Rule
68 where it "wasn't styled as a Rule 68 offer"). While the offers here could have been
more specific, they bore the hallmarks of a typical Rule 68 offer and a judgment likely
would have been entered if Deckers had accepted the offers.
Deckers is not responsible for defendants' post-offer costs, however, because

defendants have not shown that their offers of judgment were more favorable than
the judgment Deckers ultimately obtained. Under the terms of the Rule 68 offers,
defendants agreed to stop using the term Cardy with respect to footwear in the United
States and agreed not to sell any boots that infringed the four patents at issue in the
United States. Defendants also offered to pay Deckers $1,000 for each of the five
10I arrived at this number by subtracting the costs of video recording the non-Oygur
depositions, as listed in defendants' objection to Deckers's bill of costs-$8140.07, [317] at 6-
7-from Deckers's revised bill of costs, which sought to tax defendants $41,444.33.
12
offers, as well as Deckers's costs "reasonably attributable" to the claim at issue.

Finally, defendants offered to dismiss five of their counterclaims without prejudice.
None of the offers of judgment included attorney's fees.
The ultimate judgment was more favorable. After Deckers rejected the offers
to settle, defendants dismissed their counterclaims and stipulated to, among other
things, Cardy trademark infringement and patent-design infringement. The final
judgment and permanent injunction enjoined defendants (as well as their agents,
employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with defendants) from using the
Cardy mark, or an imitation of the mark, "in connection with the sale, offer for sale,
distribution, or advertising of any product in the United States or its territories."
[296] at 4. It also barred defendants from passing off any product in the United States
as a Cardy product or a product originating from Deckers, and from "offering for sale
or selling in, exporting to, and/or importing into U.S. commerce any products not
authorized by Deckers" and products that "include any reproduction, copy or colorable
imitation of the designs claimed in Deckers' Design Patents," as well as assisting
others in infringing the design patents. [296] at 4-5. The injunction also stopped
defendants from marketing the Cardy mark in any format in the United States,
including on social media. [296] at 5. Finally, the permanent injunction awarded
Deckers-the prevailing party-costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(l).
The permanent injunction went beyond defendants' offers to stop selling

footwear in the United States. The injunction banned not only defendants, but their
agents and employees as well. It enjoined defendants from using the Cardy mark in
connection with "any product," not just footwear. And it banned the defendants from
advertising or marketing products-in addition to selling them-that included
imitations of the patent designs. Finally, the offers of judgment explicitly excluded
attorney's fees, but, as noted above, Deckers is entitled to attorney's fees because this
was an exceptional case.
That the offers of judgment included five $1,000 payments does not change the
analysis, as defendants argue. "[A] favorable judgment and an injunction can be more
valuable to a plaintiff than damages." Andretti v. Borla Performance Indus., Inc., 426
F.3d 824, 837-38 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Reiter, 457 F.3d at 231 ("Nothing in the
language of Rule 68 suggests that a final judgment that contains equitable relief is
inherently less favorable than a Rule 68 offer that contains monetary relief.").
Although it can be difficult to compare two forms of equitable relief (or equitable relief
and damages), courts typically find that when the ultimate judgment is more specific
or extensive than the offer, the ultimate judgment is more favorable. See, e.g., Garrity
v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 732-33 (1st Cir. 1984) (permanent injunction containing
specific details was more favorable than "indefinite and ambiguous" offer of
settlement). Deckers ultimately received stipulations of infringement, a sweeping
permanent injunction, and attorney's fees. It was better off rejecting defendants'
offers to settle. Defendants are taxed $33,304.26.
13
Motion Regarding Time to File a Notice of Appeal
Defendants ask that any motion Deckers has filed or may file in the future
regarding attorney's fees function as a motion under Rule 59 such that it would toll
the time for filing a Notice of Appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(e). That motion is denied.
An order awarding attorney's fees, but not setting the amount to be awarded, is not
a final judgment and is not appealable. Cooke v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 919 F.3d
1024, 1026 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 134 (2019). But "a judgment on the
merits and an award of attorneys' fees are separately appealable." Id. So defendants
may appeal the judgment on the merits now, and then, once attorney's fees are
calculated, file a second Notice of Appeal from the fee award. A second appeal from
the calculation of attorney's fees will not unnecessarily complicate or prolong
resolution of the appeal, because I expect to resolve the fee petition with enough time
for the second appeal to be consolidated with the merits appeal. See Terket v. Lund,
623 F.2d 29, 34 (7th Cir. 1980) (district courts should decide fee petitions
"expeditiously" so that "[a]ny party dissatisifed with the court's ruling may then file
an appeal and apply to this court for consolidation with the pending appeal of the
merits"). Defendants have 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal on the judgment. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
ENTER:
Manish S. Shah
Date: July 13, 2020
14
Case:
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a 20-2166
Civil Action Document: 1-2 Page: 61 Filed: 08/18/2020

FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Deckers Outdoor Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v. Judge Manish Shah
Australian Leather Pty, Ltd. and Adnan Oygur,
Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):
□ in favor of plaintiff(s)
and against defendant(s)
in the amount of $ ,
which
□ includes pre–judgment interest.
□ does not include pre–judgment interest.
Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment.
Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).
□ in favor of defendant(s)
and against plaintiff(s)
Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).
other: in favor of plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation in the amount of US $2,000,000 as

reasonable attorney fees and related non-taxable expenses, plus US $33,304.26 in taxable costs, against
defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd and Eddie Oygur. Defendants are jointly and severally liable. Post-
judgment interest accrues pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
This action was (check one):
□ tried by a jury with Judge Manish Shah presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict.
□ decided by Judge Manish Shah on a motion.
tried by Judge Manish Shah without a jury and the above decision was reached.
a
Date: 8/6/2020 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Case:
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a 20-2166
Civil Action Document: 1-2 Page: 62 Filed: 08/18/2020
/s/Susan McClintic , Deputy Clerk

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?262811229962281-L_1_0-1
AO279,APPEAL,MASON,PROTO,TERMED
United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:16-cv-03676
Internal Use Only
Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty Ltd Date Filed: 03/28/2016
Assigned to: Honorable Manish S. Shah Date Terminated: 02/06/2020
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Deckers Outdoor Corporation represented by Paul G. Juettner
Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
300 South Wacker Drive
25th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 360-0080
Email: pjuettner@gbc.law
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin R. Gaudio
Greer Burns & Crain Ltd
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
312 360-0080
Email: jgaudio@gbc.law
Patrick James Smith

Greer, Burns & Crain
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
312-360-0080
Email: psmith@gbclaw.net
A TRUE COPY-ATTEST ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
THOMAS G. BRUTON,
- CLERK
By: s/ PATRYCJA JANECZEK RiKaleigh C. Johnson
DEPUTY CLERK Greer, Burns & Crain
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF
- ILLINOIS
August 14, 2020 Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
(312)360-0080
1 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
Email: rjohnson@gbc.law
V.
Defendant
Australian Leather Pty Ltd represented by Mark R Bagley
Tolpin & Partners, PC
100 North LaSalle Street
Suite 501
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 698-8971
Email: mark@tolpinlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
Adnan Oygur represented by Mark R Bagley
doing business as (See above for address)
Eddie Oygur LEAD ATTORNEY
Counter Claimant
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
V.
Counter Defendant
LEAD ATTORNEY
Justin R. Gaudio
Kent Raygor
Sheppard Mulin Richter & Hampton LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 228-3700
Email: kraygor@sheppardmullin.com
PRO HAC VICE
2 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
Patrick James Smith

Counter Claimant
LEAD ATTORNEY
V.
Counter Defendant
LEAD ATTORNEY
Justin R. Gaudio
Kent Raygor
Patrick James Smith

Date Filed # Docket Text

03/28/2016 1 COMPLAINT filed by Deckers Outdoor Corporation; Jury Demand. Filing fee
$ 400, receipt number 0752-11762669. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
03/28/2016)
03/28/2016 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/28/2016 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation by Paul G.
Juettner (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
3 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
03/28/2016 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation by Justin

R. Gaudio (Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/28/2016 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Manish S. Shah. Designated as Magistrate
Judge the Honorable Michael T. Mason. (jn, ) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/28/2016 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation by
Rikaleigh Consuela Johnson, Na (Johnson, Rikaleigh) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/28/2016 6 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Deckers Outdoor
Corporation (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/28/2016 7 Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Deckers Outdoor Corporation
(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/28/2016 8 Notice of Claims Involving Patents by Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Juettner,
Paul) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/29/2016 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd (pg, ) (Entered:
03/29/2016)
03/29/2016 9 MAILED Patent/Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA
(jl) (Main Document 9 replaced on 3/29/2016) (jl, ). (Entered: 03/29/2016)
04/11/2016 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: A status hearing is set
for 6/3/16 at 9:30 a.m. No later than three business days before the status
hearing, the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the
Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at
http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Shah's name
and then again on the link entitled 'Initial Status Conferences.' Notices mailed
by Judicial Staff. (psm, ) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
04/27/2016 11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deckers Outdoor Corporation as to
Australian Leather Pty Ltd on 4/8/2016, answer due 4/29/2016. (Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/27/2016 12 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd by Mark R
Bagley (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/27/2016 13 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Australian Leather
Pty Ltd (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/27/2016 14 MOTION by Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for extension of time to file
answer - Agreed motion (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/27/2016 15 NOTICE of Motion by Mark R Bagley for presentment of motion for extension
of time to file answer 14 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 5/3/2016 at
09:45 AM. (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/29/2016 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The agreed motion for
extension of time to answer 14 is granted, and no appearance on 5/3/16 is
necessary. Defendant shall answer the complaint by 6/27/16. The status hearing
on 6/3/16 is reset to 6/28/2016 at 09:30 AM. (mss) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
06/23/2016 17 STATUS Report by Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
06/23/2016)
4 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
06/27/2016 18 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand , COUNTERCLAIM filed by

Australian Leather Pty Ltd against Deckers Outdoor Corporation . by
Australian Leather Pty Ltd(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
06/28/2016 19 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Status hearing held.
Plaintiff's answer to the counterclaim 18 is due 7/19/16. All fact discovery must
be noticed in time to be completed by 4/26/17. The court adopts the parties'
proposed expert discovery schedule as set out in the status report 17 . All
expert discovery must be noticed in time to be completed by 9/29/17. Any
requests to amend the pleadings must be made by 1/23/17. Continued status
hearing is set for 10/14/16 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, )
(Entered: 06/28/2016)
07/19/2016 20 ANSWER to counterclaim by Deckers Outdoor Corporation(Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 07/19/2016)
10/11/2016 21 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for protective order
10/11/2016 22 MEMORANDUM by Deckers Outdoor Corporation in support of motion for
protective order 21 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
10/11/2016 23 NOTICE of Motion by Paul G. Juettner for presentment of motion for
protective order 21 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 10/14/2016 at 09:45
AM. (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
Motion hearing held. For the reasons stated in open court, the "attorneys'-eyes-
only" designation in the proposed protective order applies only to counsel of
record in this case. The motion for protective order is entered and continued. If
the parties do not advise the court otherwise by 10/18/16, the proposed
protective order will be entered. Plaintiff's oral request to file an amended
complaint is granted, with no objection. Plaintiff's amended complaint is due
11/14/16. Defendant's answer is due 12/5/16. The case schedule set out in the
court's order 19 of 6/28/16 remains in place. Continued status hearing is set for
1/26/17 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, ) (Entered:
10/14/2016)
11/01/2016 25 CONFIDENTIALITY Order. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on
11/1/2016. Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, ) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
11/14/2016 26 AMENDED complaint by Deckers Outdoor Corporation against Australian
Leather Pty Ltd (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
11/21/2016 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Adnan Oygur (jp, ) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
11/22/2016 27 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deckers Outdoor Corporation as to Adnan
Oygur on 11/21/2016, answer due 12/12/2016. (Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered:
11/22/2016)
12/05/2016 28 ANSWER to amended complaint by Australian Leather Pty Ltd(Bagley, Mark)
(Entered: 12/05/2016)
5 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
12/12/2016 29 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Adnan Oygur by Mark R Bagley

(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
12/12/2016 30 MOTION by Defendant Adnan Oygur to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
12/12/2016 31 MEMORANDUM by Adnan Oygur in support of motion to dismiss/lack of
jurisdiction 30 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
12/12/2016)
12/12/2016 32 NOTICE of Motion by Mark R Bagley for presentment of motion to
dismiss/lack of jurisdiction 30 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on
12/15/2016 at 09:45 AM. (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
12/14/2016 33 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The briefing schedule
on the motion to dismiss 30 is as follows: Plaintiff's response is due 1/4/2017;
defendant's reply is due 1/18/2017. No appearance on 12/15/16 is necessary.
Status hearing remains set for 1/26/17 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed by Judicial
Staff. (psm, ) (Entered: 12/14/2016)
12/15/2016 34 Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Counterclaims in Defendant Australian
Leather Pty Ltd's Answer to the Amended Complaint by Deckers Outdoor
12/29/2016 35 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number
0752-12705715. (Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
12/29/2016 36 NOTICE of Motion by Justin R. Gaudio for presentment of motion to appear
pro hac vice 35 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 1/5/2017 at 09:45 AM.
(Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 12/29/2016)
01/03/2017 37 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion for leave to
appear pro hac vice 35 is granted. Kent Raygor is added as counsel of record
for plaintiff. No appearance on 1/5/17 is necessary. Notices mailed by Judicial
01/04/2017 38 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for leave to file Under
Seal (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
01/04/2017 39 NOTICE of Motion by Paul G. Juettner for presentment of motion for leave to
file 38 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 1/12/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Juettner,
01/04/2017 40 MEMORANDUM by Deckers Outdoor Corporation in Opposition to motion to
dismiss/lack of jurisdiction 30 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
01/04/2017 41 DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in opposition to
motion 40 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10
Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit
14)(Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
01/04/2017 42 NOTICE by Deckers Outdoor Corporation re memorandum in opposition to
motion 40 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
6 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
01/05/2017 43 MOTION by Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for protective order -
agreed motion to amend protective order (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 44 NOTICE of Motion by Mark R Bagley for presentment of motion for
AM. (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/06/2017 45 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion for entry of
amended confidentiality order 43 is granted. Enter Amended Confidentiality
Order. No appearance on the motion is necessary. Notices mailed by Judicial
01/06/2017 46 AMENDED Confidentiality Order. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah
on 1/6/2017. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
file under seal 38 is granted. The court may revisit the seal at the status hearing
on 1/26/17. Notices mailed by Judicial Staff. (psm, ) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
01/18/2017 48 REPLY by Adnan Oygur to memorandum in opposition to motion 40 to dismiss
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
01/23/2017 49 MOTION by Counter Claimant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for leave to file
Amended Counterclaims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
01/23/2017)
01/23/2017 50 NOTICE of Motion by Mark R Bagley for presentment of motion for leave to
file 49 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 1/26/2017 at 09:30 AM. (Bagley,
Mark) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
01/25/2017 51 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Manish S.
Shah on 1/25/2017: Oygur's motion to dismiss, 30 , is denied. [For further
detail see attached order.] Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
Defendant Adnan Oygur must answer by 2/16/17. The parties are directed to
meet and confer on sealed exhibits, and shall filed redacted versions on the
public docket. Defendant's motion for leave to file amended counterclaims 49
is granted, with no objection. The amended counterclaims shall be filed as a
separate document on the court's docket. Plaintiff's response is due 2/16/17.
The discovery deadlines remain in place. Continued status hearing is set for
4/21/17 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
01/26/2017 53 Amended COUNTERCLAIM filed by Australian Leather Pty Ltd against
Deckers Outdoor Corporation .(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
02/01/2017 54 EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Redacted Exhibit 6 -
PayPal Account Information Page regarding declaration, 41 (Gaudio, Justin)
(Entered: 02/01/2017)
02/16/2017 55 ANSWER to amended complaint by Adnan Oygur(Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
02/16/2017)
02/16/2017 56 ANSWER to counterclaim by Deckers Outdoor Corporation(Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 02/16/2017)
7 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
03/06/2017 57 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Counter Defendant

Deckers Outdoor Corporation to compel (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
03/06/2017 58 MEMORANDUM by Deckers Outdoor Corporation in support of motion to
compel 57 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
03/06/2017 59 DECLARATION of Paul Juettner regarding memorandum in support of motion
58 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5
Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
03/06/2017)
03/06/2017 60 NOTICE of Motion by Paul G. Juettner for presentment of motion to compel
57 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 3/9/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 03/06/2017)
03/08/2017 61 MEMORANDUM by Australian Leather Pty Ltd in Opposition to motion to
compel 57 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
03/08/2017 62 DECLARATION of Mark R. Bagley regarding memorandum in opposition to
motion 61 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
03/08/2017)
03/09/2017 63 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Motion hearing held.
For the reasons stated in open court, plaintiff's motion to compel 57 is granted
in part. The court orders defendant Oygur to sit for a deposition in the United
States. The parties are directed to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable
date, time, and location. If no agreement on location is reached, the deposition
location will be Chicago. Status hearing remains set for 4/21/17 at 9:30 a.m.
Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
03/10/2017 64 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 03/09/17 before the Honorable
Manish S. Shah. Court Reporter Contact Information: Colleen Conway,
312.435.5594 or colleen_conway@ilnd.uscourts.gov.
IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or

purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for
Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the
Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction
process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links
select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 3/31/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for

4/10/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/8/2017. (Conway,
Colleen) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
03/20/2017 65 MOTION by Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for leave to take fifteen
total depositions (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
03/20/2017 66 MEMORANDUM by Australian Leather Pty Ltd in support of motion for
miscellaneous relief 65 Leave to take fifteen total depositions (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
miscellaneous relief 65 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 3/23/2017 at
8 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
09:45 AM. (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/20/2017)

03/22/2017 68 MOTION By Plaintiff for a request for a further order on the Court's March 9
order compelling Defendant Australian Leather to appear in the U.S. for its rule
(B)(6) deposition, and response to Defendant Australian Leather's Motion for
leave to take additional depositions. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Juettner,
Paul)(Docket text modified by the Clerk's Office) Modified on 3/23/2017 (mc,
). (Entered: 03/22/2017)
03/22/2017 69 MOTION by Counter Defendant Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Plaintiff
Deckers Outdoor Corporation for protective order to Quash Notices of
Deposition (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
protective order 69 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
03/22/2017 71 DECLARATION of Paul G. Juettner regarding memorandum in support of
motion 70 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
03/22/2017)


The court will issue a ruling on defendant's motion for leave to take fifteen total
depositions 65 , plaintiff's motion for order 68 , and plaintiff's motion for
protective order 69 via cm/ecf. No appearance on 3/28/17 is necessary. Status
hearing remains set for 4/21/17 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
03/23/2017)
03/23/2017 75 ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 3/23/2017: Defendants'
motion to take additional depositions, 65 , is granted. Defendants may take up
to fifteen depositions. Plaintiff's motion to compel an earlier deposition of
defendant Oygur, 68 , is denied. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order, 69 , is
denied, with certain caveats described in the attached order. The status hearing
on April 21, 2017, is reset to April 25, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. [For further detail see
attached order.] Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
9 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
03/29/2017 76 ATTORNEY Appearance for Counter Defendants Deckers Outdoor

Corporation, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor
Corporation by Patrick James Smith (Smith, Patrick) (Entered: 03/29/2017)


04/21/2017 78 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The parties report a
mediation is scheduled for 4/24/17. The 4/26/17 fact discovery deadline and the
5/10/17 date to identify experts are stricken. Status hearing on 4/25/17 is
stricken. The parties are directed to contact the courtroom deputy after the
mediation to set a new status hearing date, and to propose a revised case
schedule, if the mediation was not successful. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
04/21/2017)
04/24/2017 (Court only) ***Deadlines and hearings Terminated. (psm, ) (Entered:
04/24/2017)
04/28/2017 79 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The parties report the
case was not resolved at mediation. Status hearing is set for 5/30/17 at 9:30
a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
05/08/2017 80 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for protective order to
Quash Notice of Deposition and to Clarify Previous Order on Fact Discovery
Cutoff Date (Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
05/08/2017 81 DECLARATION of Kent Raygor regarding motion for protective order 80
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
05/08/2017 82 DECLARATION of Paul G. Juettner regarding motion for protective order 80
05/08/2017 83 DECLARATION of RiKaleigh Johnson regarding motion for protective order
80 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered:
05/08/2017)
10 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
05/09/2017 85 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Hearing on 5/11/17 on
plaintiff's motion for protective order 80 is reset to 9:30 a.m. Please note, this is
only a change of time. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
05/09/2017 86 MOTION by Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for hearing re MOTION by
Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for protective order to Quash Notice of
Deposition and to Clarify Previous Order on Fact Discovery Cutoff Date 80 -
Motion to reschedule hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark)
(Entered: 05/09/2017)
05/09/2017 87 NOTICE of Motion by Mark R Bagley for presentment of motion for hearing,
motion for relief,, 86 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 5/16/2017 at 09:45
05/10/2017 88 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah:Defendant's Motion to
reschedule the hearing on plaintiff's motion for a protective order 86 is granted
in part and denied in part. Defendant shall file a written response to plaintiff's
motion by 05/11/17, no reply is permitted, and the court will enter a ruling on
plaintiff's motion by cm/ecf. No appearance on 5/11/17 or 5/16/17 is necessary.
The court notes that when it struck the fact discovery deadline on 4/21/17, it
did not intend to authorize any discovery not previously noticed. The point was
to give the parties some scheduling flexibility for pre-noticed discovery, in light
of the mediation. (mss) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
05/11/2017 89 MEMORANDUM by Australian Leather Pty Ltd in Opposition to motion for
protective order 80 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
05/11/2017)
05/12/2017 90 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiff's motion for a
protective order 80 is granted. Putting aside whether the parties reached an
agreement about discovery, an issue the court does not resolve, no additional
discovery was intended to be authorized when the court struck the fact
discovery deadline on 4/21/17. The court has emphasized that all fact discovery
must have been noticed in time for completion by 4/26/17, and that defendant
in particular was not authorized to seek any extensions. See 75 at 3. The notice
of deposition of witness Eichenberg is quashed. As for supplemental document
productions, the court simply notes that the parties have an obligation to
supplement their productions if they are in possession of documents responsive
to previously issued document requests, but no additional fact discovery may
be propounded at this time. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
05/24/2017 91 STATUS Report Regarding Revised Case Schedule by Deckers Outdoor
05/26/2017 92 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The court adopts the
parties' proposed discovery schedule as set out in the status report 91 .
Identification of Experts that the Parties Might Use at Trial, Excluding Experts
Intended Solely to Contradict or Rebut must be made by 6/6/17. Expert Reports
from Party Bearing Burden of Proof on an Issue are due 7/18/17. Rebuttal
Expert Reports are due 9/18/17. Close of Expert Discovery on 10/18/17.
Dispositive Motions are due 1/18/18. No appearance on 5/30/17 is necessary.
Status hearing is reset to 9/27/17 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
05/26/2017)
11 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
07/18/2017 93 MOTION by Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for extension of time -
Agreed motion for one expert report (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
07/18/2017 94 NOTICE of Motion by Mark R Bagley for presentment of extension of time 93
before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 8/1/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Bagley, Mark)
(Entered: 07/18/2017)
07/27/2017 95 MOTION by Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd to substitute expert witness
- Agreed motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
07/27/2017)
miscellaneous relief 95 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 8/1/2017 at 09:45
07/28/2017 97 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah:The motion to substitute
expert witness 95 is granted. The expert reports of Linda Poetsch for Australian
Leather and Caroline de Baere for Deckers are due on August 18, 2017. Any
rebuttal reports (to those two experts only) are due on September 27, 2017. The
motion for extension of time 93 is terminated as moot. No appearance on
8/1/17 is necessary. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
08/16/2017 98 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporationin limine to Exclude
Inadmissible Opinion Testimony on Damages and to Allow Rebuttal Expert
Testimony on Damages (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
08/16/2017 99 MEMORANDUM by Deckers Outdoor Corporation in support of motion in
limine 98 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
08/16/2017 100 DECLARATION of Paul G. Juettner regarding memorandum in support of
motion 99 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9
Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
08/16/2017 101 DECLARATION of Scott D. Phillips regarding memorandum in support of
motion 99 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
08/16/2017 102 NOTICE of Motion by Paul G. Juettner for presentment of motion in limine 98
before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 8/22/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 08/16/2017)
file 103 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 8/22/2017 at 09:45 AM.
file under seal 103 is granted. Defendant's response to plaintiff's Motion to
Exclude Inadmissible Opinion Testimony on Damages and to Allow Rebuttal
Expert Testimony on Damages 98 is due 9/1/17. No reply permitted. No
appearance on 8/22/17 is necessary. Status hearing remains set for 9/27/17 at
9:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
12 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
08/21/2017 106 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Plaintiff's

Memorandum in Support of its Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible
Opinion Testimony on Damages and to Allow Rebuttal Expert Testimony on
Damages (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
08/21/2017 107 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Exhibit B
regarding declaration, 100 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
08/21/2017 108 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Exhibit C
08/21/2017 109 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Exhibit D
08/21/2017 110 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Exhibit E
09/01/2017 111 MEMORANDUM by Australian Leather Pty Ltd in Opposition to motion in
limine 98 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
motion 111 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Bagley,
under seal (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
file under seal 113 is granted. No appearance on the motion is necessary.
09/11/2017 116 SEALED RESPONSE by Australian Leather Pty Ltd to MOTION by Plaintiff
Deckers Outdoor Corporationin limine to Exclude Inadmissible Opinion
Testimony on Damages and to Allow Rebuttal Expert Testimony on Damages
98 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
09/11/2017 117 SEALED EXHIBIT by Counter Claimant Australian Leather Pty Ltd - Exhibt A
regarding declaration 112 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
09/11/2017 118 SEALED EXHIBIT by Counter Claimant Australian Leather Pty Ltd - Exhibit
B regarding declaration 112 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
09/27/2017 119 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Status hearing held. For
the reasons stated in open court, Plaintiff's Motion in limine to Exclude
Inadmissible Opinion Testimony on Damages and to Allow Rebuttal Expert
Testimony on Damages 98 is granted in part and denied in part. Adnan Oygu's
damages testimony will not be excluded in limine, and the court permits
defendants rebuttal expert testimony. The 10/18/17 expert discovery deadline
remains as set. Continued status hearing is set for 11/1/17 at 9:30 a.m. Notices
mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
13 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM

Manish S. Shah. Order Number: 28418. Court Reporter Contact Information:
Colleen Conway, 312.435.5594 or colleen_conway@ilnd.uscourts.gov.


09/29/2017 121 MOTION by Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for extension of time -
Agreed motion to extend expert discovery period (Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
09/29/2017)
09/29/2017 122 NOTICE of Motion by Mark R Bagley for presentment of extension of time
121 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 10/10/2017 at 09:45 AM. (Bagley,
10/06/2017 123 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion for
extension of time to complete expert discovery 121 is granted. The deadline is
extended to 10/20/17. No appearance on the motion is necessary. Status hearing
remains set for 11/1/17 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
10/06/2017)
Attorney Kent Raygor appeared by phone. The deadline of 1/18/18 for
dispositive motions shall stand and will also be the deadline for parties to file
any motions to exclude evidence. Both Plaintiff and Defendant are allowed 30
pages for their affirmative motions. Responses to motions are due by 2/22/18;
replies are due by 3/15/18. Status hearing is set for 5/22/18 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed
notice (ags, ) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
12/08/2017 125 STIPULATION Regarding Defendants' Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
01/05/2018 126 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor CorporationUnopposed Motion to
Exceed Brief Page and Statements of Fact Limits on its Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
09:45 AM. (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
01/05/2018 128 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion to extend
brief page and statements of fact limits 126 is granted. Plaintiff is allowed up to
40 pages for its memorandum and up to 120 statements of undisputed material
fact. No appearance on the motion is necessary. Notices mailed. (psm, )
(Entered: 01/05/2018)
14 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM



2/8/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/9/2018. (Conway, Colleen)
(Entered: 01/08/2018)
01/18/2018 130 MOTION by Counter Claimant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for partial summary
judgment (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
partial summary judgment 130 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 132 RULE 56 c Statement by Australian Leather Pty Ltd regarding motion for
01/18/2018 133 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporationto Exclude Expert Opinion
Testimony Proffered by Defendant From Australian Law School Professor
Mark Davison (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
miscellaneous relief 133 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 135 DECLARATION of Kent Raygor regarding memorandum in support of motion
134 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5
Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 136 DECLARATION of Mark R. Bagley regarding motion for partial summary
judgment 130 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C - Part
1, # 4 Exhibit C - Part 2, # 5 Exhibit C - Part 3, # 6 Exhibit C - Part 4, # 7
Exhibit C - Part 5, # 8 Exhibit C - Part 6, # 9 Exhibit C - Part 7, # 10 Exhibit C
- Part 8, # 11 Exhibit C - Part 9, # 12 Exhibit C - Part 10, # 13 Exhibit C - Part
11, # 14 Exhibit C - Part 12, # 15 Exhibit C - Part 13, # 16 Exhibit C - Part 14,
# 17 Exhibit C - Part 15, # 18 Exhibit D, # 19 Exhibit E, # 20 Exhibit F, # 21
Exhibit G, # 22 Exhibit H, # 23 Exhibit I, # 24 Exhibit J, # 25 Exhibit K, # 26
Exhibit L, # 27 Exhibit M, # 28 Exhibit N, # 29 Exhibit O, # 30 Exhibit P, # 31
Exhibit Q, # 32 Exhibit R, # 33 Exhibit S, # 34 Exhibit T, # 35 Exhibit U, # 36
Exhibit V, # 37 Exhibit W, # 38 Exhibit X, # 39 Exhibit Y, # 40 Exhibit Z, # 41
Exhibit AA, # 42 Exhibit BB, # 43 Exhibit CC, # 44 Exhibit DD, # 45 Exhibit
EE, # 46 Exhibit FF)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 137 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for partial summary
judgment (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
partial summary judgment 137 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
15 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
01/18/2018 139 RULE 56.1(a)(3) Statement by Deckers Outdoor Corporation regarding motion
for partial summary judgment 137 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 140 DECLARATION of Kent Raygor regarding Rule 56 statement 139
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5
Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit
10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15
Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19,
# 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit
Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32)(Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 141 DECLARATION of Brian Smith regarding Rule 56 statement 139
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10
Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 142 DECLARATION of Leah Larson regarding Rule 56 statement 139
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 143 DECLARATION of John Kalinich regarding Rule 56 statement 139
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 144 DECLARATION of Paul Juettner regarding Rule 56 statement 139
Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 145 DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding Rule 56 statement 139
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 146 DECLARATION of RiKaleigh Johnson regarding memorandum in support of
motion 138 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered:
01/18/2018)
01/18/2018 148 NOTICE by Deckers Outdoor Corporation re MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers
Outdoor Corporation for partial summary judgment 137 , MOTION by Plaintiff
Deckers Outdoor Corporationto Exclude Expert Opinion Testimony Proffered
by Defendant From Australian Law School Professor Mark Davison 133
file documents under seal 147 is granted. Plaintiff is directed to file unredacted
versions as sealed documents on the court's docket. Notices mailed. (psm, )
(Entered: 01/19/2018)
16 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
documents under seal (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
01/19/2018 152 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Unredacted
Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 138
01/19/2018 153 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Plaintiff's
Unredacted Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Its
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 139 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
01/19/2018)
Declaration of Kent R. Raygor Re Fact and Expert Witness Deposition
Testimony and Exhibits Submitted in Support of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Deckers Outdoor Corporations Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 140
Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32)(Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 01/19/2018)
Declaration of Brian Smith 141 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8
Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 01/19/2018)
Declaration of John Kalinich 143 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #
3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Juettner,
Declaration of Paul Juettner 144 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, #
3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8
Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13
Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit
17)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
file under seal 150 is granted. No appearance on the motion is necessary.
01/23/2018 159 SEALED DOCUMENT by Counter Claimant Australian Leather Pty Ltd -
Unredacted memorandum in support of motion for partial summary judgment
17 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
Unredacted statement of material facts in support of motion for partial
summary judgment (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
Unredacted Exhibit K to January 18 Declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit Q to January 18 Declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit V to January 18 Declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit W to January 18 Declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit X to January 18 Declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit Y to January 18 Declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit EE to January 18 Declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit FF to January 18 Declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
02/15/2018 169 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor CorporationJoint Motion to Exceed the
Brief Page and Fact Limits on Parties Memoranda in Response to Motions for
Partial Summary Judgment (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
02/20/2018 171 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motion to exceed
the brief page and fact limits 169 is granted. Deckers is allowed to file a
responsive memorandum of up to 30 pages. Australian Leather is allowed to
file a responsive memorandum of up to 40 pages and is permitted to file a Rule
56.1 statement with up to 60 facts. No appearance on the motion is necessary.
02/22/2018 172 MEMORANDUM by Deckers Outdoor Corporation in Opposition to motion
18 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
02/22/2018 173 RULE 56.1(b)(3) Statement by Deckers Outdoor Corporation regarding motion
02/22/2018 174 DECLARATION of Kent Raygor regarding Rule 56 statement 173
Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/22/2018 175 DECLARATION of Brian Smith regarding Rule 56 statement 173
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/22/2018 176 DECLARATION of Edward Maeder regarding Rule 56 statement 173
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/22/2018 177 DECLARATION of John Kalinich regarding Rule 56 statement 173
Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Juettner,
02/22/2018 178 DECLARATION of Caroline de Baere regarding Rule 56 statement 173
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/22/2018 179 DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding Rule 56 statement 173
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Gaudio, Justin)
(Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/22/2018 180 DECLARATION of RiKaleigh Johnson regarding memorandum in opposition
to motion 172 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Johnson, RiKaleigh)
(Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/22/2018 182 RULE 56 Local Rule 56.1b Statement by Australian Leather Pty Ltd regarding
motion for partial summary judgment 137 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
02/22/2018)
miscellaneous relief 133 - motion to exclude Davison testimony (Bagley, Mark)
(Entered: 02/22/2018)
Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14
Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19
Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24
Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, #
29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33
Exhibit GG)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
19 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
file documents under seal 185 is granted. No appearance on the motion is
necessary. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
Unredacted memorandum in opposition to Deckers' motion for partial
summary judgment (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
Unredacted statement of material facts in opposition to Deckers' motion for
partial summary judgment (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
Unredacted Exhibit F to February 22 declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit Z to February 22 declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit AA to February 22 declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit DD to February 22 declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
Unredacted Exhibit EE to February 22 declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley,
03/09/2018 195 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor CorporationAgreed Motion to Exceed
the Brief Page Limit on Parties Memoranda in Reply to Memoranda in
Opposition to Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
03/09/2018)
file a brief in excess of 15 pages 195 is granted. No appearance on the motion
is necessary. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
03/15/2018 198 REPLY by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation to memorandum in
opposition to motion 183 to Exclude Opinion Testimony Proffered by
Defendant from Australian Law School Professor Mark Davison (Juettner,
20 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM

opposition to motion 181 for Partial Summary Judgment (Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 03/15/2018)
03/15/2018 200 RULE 56.1(a) Statement by Deckers Outdoor Corporation regarding motion
03/15/2018 201 DECLARATION of Kent Raygor regarding Rule 56 statement 200 , reply 198
10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
03/15/2018 203 REPLY by Australian Leather Pty Ltd to memorandum in opposition to motion
172 for partial summary judgment (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
03/15/2018 204 RULE 56 Local Rule 56.1a Statement by Australian Leather Pty Ltd regarding
motion for partial summary judgment 130 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
03/15/2018)
03/15/2018 205 DECLARATION of Mark R. Bagley regarding reply to response to motion 203
03/15/2018 206 DECLARATION of Bruce McDougall regarding reply to response to motion
03/22/2018 210 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporationto Strike or in the
Alternative for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Juettner,
03/23/2018 212 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motions for leave to
file under seal 202 207 are granted. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
03/23/2018)
Unredacted Exhibit A to March 15 declaration of Mark Bagley (Bagley, Mark)
(Entered: 03/26/2018)
21 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM

Rule 56.1(a) Statement in Response to Defendant Australian Leather's
Statement of Additional Facts 182 Submitted in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment 200 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
Exhibit 9 to the Second Supplemental Declaration of Kent R. Raygor [201-9]
Exhibit 10 to the Second Supplemental Declaration of Kent R. Raygor [201-10]
For the reasons stated in open court, plaintiff's motion to strike or for leave to
file sur-reply 210 is granted in part. The 2018 declaration submitted by
defendant is stricken. Status hearing on 5/22/18 is stricken and reset to 7/19/18
at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
07/16/2018 218 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The motions for
summary judgment are taken under advisement. The court will issue a ruling
via cm/ecf. The status hearing set for 7/19/18 is stricken and no appearance is
necessary. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
09/13/2018 219 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Manish S.
Shah on 9/13/2018: Deckers's motion for partial summary judgment is granted
with respect to Australian Leather's claims based on fraud, generic status, and
the foreign equivalents doctrine. The motion as to Australian Leather's
damages calculation is denied. Australian Leather's motion is denied. Deckers's
motion for summary judgment, 137 , is granted in part, denied in part.
Australian Leather's motion, 130 , is denied. [For further detail see attached
order.] A status hearing is set for 10/5/18 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, )
(Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/20/2018 220 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: At the parties' request,
the status hearing on 10/5/18 is stricken and reset to 10/9/18 at 9:30 a.m.
Trial is set for 5/6/19 at 9:30 a.m. The proposed pretrial order shall be
submitted to this court's proposed order email inbox at
proposed_order_shah@ilnd.uscourts.gov and filed on the court's docket by
4/16/19. Motions in limine shall also be filed by 4/16/19. Responses to motions
in limine shall be filed by 4/23/18. The court will rule orally on the motions in
limine at the final pretrial conference set for 4/30/19 at 1:30 p.m. Defendant's
motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal is due by 10/15/18. Plaintiff's
response is due by 10/29/18. Defendant's reply is due by 11/5/18. The motion
will be taken under advisement and a ruling will be issued via CM/ECF. The
parties' submissions regarding the continuation of the seal on any documents is
due by 10/25/18. Continued status hearing is set for 12/12/18 at 9:30 a.m.
Notices mailed. (lf, ) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
22 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
10/15/2018 222 MOTION by Counter Claimant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for certificate of
appealability and for stay pending that appeal (Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
10/15/2018)
certificate of appealability 222 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
10/24/2018 224 Joint STATEMENT by Deckers Outdoor Corporation Identifying Docket
Entries for Unsealing and Stating Basis for Continued Secrecy (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
for certificate of appealability 222 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
11/05/2018 226 REPLY by Australian Leather Pty Ltd to memorandum in opposition to motion
12/12/2018 228 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Status hearing held. For
the reasons stated in open court, defendant's motion for certificate of
appealability 222 is denied. The Clerk shall unseal the following sealed filings
[154-11], [154-16], 161 , and 214 . Docket entry 189 shall remain sealed
because [224-1] is a publicly available replacement. The parties are directed to
meet and confer on plaintiff's forthcoming motion under FRCP 42(b). Notices


12/20/2018 229 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The briefing schedule
on plaintiff's Rule 42(b) motion to bifurcate is as follows: plaintiff's motion is
due 1/15/19. Defendant's response is due 1/29/19; plaintiff's reply is due 2/5/19.
01/15/2019 230 MOTION by Counter Defendants Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Deckers
Outdoor Corporation, Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation to bifurcate the
Equitable Issues of Unclean Hands and Estoppel and to Exclude Evidence
Solely Related to the Equitable Issues (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
01/15/2019 231 MEMORANDUM by Deckers Outdoor Corporation in support of motion to
bifurcate, 230 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
23 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
01/16/2019 232 AMENDED memorandum in support of motion 231 (corrections made to lines
13,14, and 16 on page 2) (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
01/29/2019 233 MEMORANDUM by Australian Leather Pty Ltd in Opposition to motion to
bifurcate, 230 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
02/05/2019 234 REPLY by Deckers Outdoor Corporation to memorandum in opposition to
motion 233 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
03/13/2019 235 STIPULATION Regarding Defendant/Counter-Claimant Australian Leather's
Fourth Counterclaim (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/13/2019)
03/15/2019 236 ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 3/15/2019: Deckers's
motion to bifurcate the equitable issues of unclean hands, laches, and estoppel,
230 , is granted. [For further detail see attached order.] Notices mailed. (psm, )
(Entered: 03/15/2019)
03/19/2019 237 STIPULATION Regarding Deckers' Design Patents and Cardy Mark (Juettner,
04/08/2019 238 STIPULATION regarding certain of Plaintiff's unfair competition, state law,
and common law claims (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
Deckers Outdoor CorporationUnopposed Motion to Exceed the Brief Page
Limit on its Motions in Limine (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
exceed page limit 239 is granted. Plaintiff may use 30 pages in its motions in
limine brief. No appearance on the motion is necessary. Notices mailed. (psm, )
(Entered: 04/10/2019)
04/15/2019 242 STIPULATION Regarding Plaintiff's UGG Trademark (Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 04/15/2019)
Deckers Outdoor Corporationin limine and Supporting Memoranda
Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
04/16/2019)
04/16/2019 244 MOTION by Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygurin limine
04/16/2019 245 PROPOSED Pretrial Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3
04/23/2019 246 RESPONSE by Deckers Outdoor Corporationin Opposition to MOTION by
Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygurin limine 244 (Juettner,
24 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
04/23/2019 247 MEMORANDUM by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur in Opposition
to motion in limine, 243 - Motions Nos. 1-4 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
to motion in limine, 243 - Motions Nos. 5-10 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
04/23/2019 249 MOTION by Defendant Australian Leather Pty Ltd for leave to file under seal
file 249 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 4/30/2019 at 01:30 PM. (Bagley,
04/30/2019 252 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Final pretrial conference
held. For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiff's motions in limine 243 are
granted in part, denied in part, as follows: No. 9 is granted, Nos. 4 and 8 are
denied, and Nos. 1-3, 5-7, and 10 are granted in part, denied in part.
Defendants' motion in limine 244 is denied. The court ruled on the
admissibility of certain exhibits and will post its proposed jury instructions on
the docket. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
05/01/2019 251 Entered in error. (Entered: 05/01/2019)
05/01/2019 253 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: the minute order dated
4/30/19 is amended to read that plaintiff's motions in limine 243 are granted in
part, denied in part, as follows: No. 9 is granted, Nos. 4 and 8 are denied, and
Nos. 1-3, 5-7, and 10 are granted in part, denied in part. This is just a correction
of a clerical error. The rest of the order remains in place. Notices mailed. (psm,
) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
05/02/2019 254 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: By 5pm on 5/3/19, the
parties shall file brief statements addressing whether the question of willfulness
for the patent infringement claims should be eliminated from the jury's
consideration. See AIA America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, 866 F.3d
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (there is no 7th Amendment right to a jury trial on facts
forming the basis for an attorney's fee award under section 285 of the Patent
Act). The court generally does not use advisory juries for equitable issues, and
is considering eliminating the patent issues from the jury trial to simplify
matters for the jurors. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
05/02/2019 255 COURT'S PROPOSED Jury Instructions and Verdict Form. (psm, ) (Entered:
05/02/2019)
Manish S. Shah. Final Pretrial Conference. Order Number: 34622. Court
Reporter Contact Information: Colleen Conway, 312.435.5594 or
colleen_conway@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

25 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM

6/3/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/1/2019. (Conway, Colleen)
(Entered: 05/03/2019)
05/03/2019 257 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Counter Defendant
Deckers Outdoor Corporation to text entry,, 254 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
05/03/2019)
05/03/2019 258 Memorandum supporting moving patent issues to bench trial by Australian
Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
05/06/2019 259 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Voir dire held. Jury
selected and trial begun. Opening statements given and evidence entered. Jury
trial continued to 5/7/19 at 10:00 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
05/06/2019)
05/07/2019 260 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Jury trial held and
evidence entered. Plaintiff's case remains open during the defense case as
discussed on the record. Jury trial continued to 5/8/19 at 10:00 a.m. Notices
05/08/2019 261 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Jury trial held. Evidence
entered. Jury instruction conference held. Jury trial continued to 5/9/19 at 10:00
a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
05/09/2019 262 JURY Instructions Given. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
05/09/2019 263 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Jury trial held. Evidence
entered. Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied for the
reasons stated on the record. Closing arguments made. Jury instructions given.
Jury deliberates. Bench trial begun. Evidence entered and bench trial continued
to 5/10/19 at 9:45 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
05/09/2019 272 JURY Note. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
05/10/2019 270 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Jury deliberates. Jury
reaches a verdict. Jury finds in favor of plaintiff and against defendants on all
claims, and awards statutory damages in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants in the amount of $450,000. Enter Verdict Form. Enter Jury Note.
Bench trial held. Evidence entered. The issues presented for the purposes of the
bench trial are taken under advisement. The evidence is closed, subject to
defendant's identification of the exhibits, which shall be filed by 5/17/19. Any
objection to the exhibits may be filed in writing thereafter. Defendant's brief on
the unclean hands issue is due 5/31/19. Plaintiffs response is due 6/14/19.
Defendant may contact the courtroom deputy if he believes a reply is necessary.
05/10/2019 271 JURY Verdict entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants on all claims.
(Mailed Notice) (RESTRICTED) (psm, ) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
05/14/2019 264 Defendants' List of Bench Trial Exhibits to be Considered by Australian
Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
26 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM

Manish S. Shah. Trial, Vol. 1, Pages 1-162. Court Reporter Contact
Information: Colleen Conway, OCR, colleen_conway@ilnd.uscourts.gov or
312.435.5594.


312.435.5594.


312.435.5594.


312.435.5594.
27 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM


312.435.5594.


05/30/2019 273 MOTION by Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur for leave to
file - submit deposition transcripts of John Arnold and Roger Bosley (Bagley,
05/31/2019 275 MEMORANDUM by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur - in support of
unclean hands defense and counterclaim (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
For the reasons stated in open court, defendants' motion for leave to file
deposition transcripts 273 is granted. The deposition transcripts may be filed on
the court's docket, and defendant is directed to file a statement designating the
pages and lines of the depositions published at trial. Notices mailed. (psm, )
(Entered: 06/04/2019)
06/04/2019 277 Submission of Arnold and Bosley deposition transcripts by Australian Leather
Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Bagley,
06/14/2019 278 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Counter Defendant
Deckers Outdoor Corporation to memorandum 275 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
06/14/2019)
28 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
06/14/2019 279 APPENDIX Response 278 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3

8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit
27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31)(Juettner,
Deckers Outdoor Corporation for leave to file under seal (Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 06/14/2019)
06/14/2019 282 SEALED DOCUMENT by Counter Defendant Deckers Outdoor Corporation,
Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 28, 29, and 30 to
Plaintiffs Appendix of Articles, Trial Transcripts and Exhibits Cited in its
Memorandum in Response to Defendants Memorandum in Support of their
Unclean Hands ( Symbol Misuse) Defense and Counterclaim (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 9, # 2 Exhibit 10, # 3 Exhibit 11, # 4 Exhibit 28, # 5 Exhibit 29, # 6
Exhibit 30)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
file under seal 280 is granted in part and denied in part. Exhibits 10 and 11
shall be unsealed, the other exhibits will remain under seal temporarily. No
appearance on the motion is necessary. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
06/18/2019)
06/19/2019 284 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 6-4-19 before the Honorable
Sandra M. Mullin, Sandra_Mullin@ilnd.uscourts.gov, 312-554-8244.


7/22/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/17/2019. (Mullin, Sandra)
(Entered: 06/19/2019)
12/09/2019 285 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: A status hearing is set
for 12/19/2019 at 09:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
12/19/2019 286 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Status hearing held. The
court makes it findings of facts and conclusions of law in open court. For the
reasons stated in open court, defendant's unclean hands defense and
counterclaim is denied. Plaintiff has leave to file its motion for entry of
29 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
permanent injunction by 1/6/20. Defendant's response is due 1/27/20.

Continued status hearing is set for 2/6/20 at 9:30 a.m. Notices mailed. (psm, )
(Entered: 12/19/2019)
Colleen Conway, OCR, colleen_conway@ilnd.uscourts.gov or 312.435.5594.


Outdoor Corporation, Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for Entry of a
Final Judgment , MOTION by Counter Defendants Deckers Outdoor
Corporation for permanent injunction (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
miscellaneous relief,, motion for permanent injunction, 288 (Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 01/06/2020)
01/06/2020 290 APPENDIX memorandum in support of motion 289 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7
Exhibit V)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
01/06/2020 291 NOTICE by Deckers Outdoor Corporation re appendix, 290 , memorandum in
support of motion 289 , MOTION by Counter Defendants Deckers Outdoor
Corporation for Entry of a Final Judgment MOTION by Counter Defendants
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Plaintiff Deckers
Outdoor Corporation for permanent injunction 288 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
01/06/2020)
01/27/2020 292 RESPONSE by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur to MOTION by
Counter Defendants Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Deckers Outdoor
Corporation, Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for Entry of a Final
Judgment MOTION by Counter Defendants Deckers Outdoor Corporation,
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for
permanent injunction 288 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 01/27/2020)
Outdoor Corporation, Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for leave to file
30 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
Instanter a Reply to Defendants' Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's

Proposed Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction 292 (Attachments: # 1
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's
Proposed Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
01/31/2020)
file, 293 before Honorable Manish S. Shah on 2/6/2020 at 09:30 AM. (Juettner,
02/06/2020 295 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Status hearing held. The
motion for leave to file reply instanter 293 is granted. For the reasons stated in
open court, the motion for permanent injunction 288 is granted in part. Enter
Permanent Injunction as modified by the court. Enter judgment. Plaintiff's
motion for a finding of liability for attorneys' fees shall be filed by 2/20/20.
Response is due 3/23/20; reply is due 4/6/20. Post-judgment motions are due
3/5/20. The parties shall meet and confer on a proposed briefing schedule and
then contact susan_mcclintic@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Notices mailed. (psm, )
(Entered: 02/06/2020)
02/06/2020 296 FINAL Judgment and Permanent Injunction. Signed by the Honorable Manish
S. Shah on 2/6/2020. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
02/06/2020 297 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Notices mailed. (Attachments: # 1 Permanent
Injunction)(psm, ) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
02/07/2020 298 MAILED Patent/Trademark report with certified copy of minute order 296 ,
297 dated 2/6/20 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. (kp, ) (Entered:
02/07/2020)
Deckers Outdoor Corporation for attorney fees (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
02/20/2020)
attorney fees 299 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
02/20/2020 301 DECLARATION of RiKaleigh C. Johnson regarding memorandum in support
of motion 300 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
Rosemary Scarpelli, Rosemary_Scarpelli@ilnd.uscourts.gov, (312)435-5885,
on behalf of Mary Hacker.

31 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
3/23/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/20/2020. (Scarpelli,

Rosemary) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
02/20/2020 303 APPENDIX memorandum in support of motion 300 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7
Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
02/20/2020)
02/20/2020 304 NOTICE by Deckers Outdoor Corporation re MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers
Outdoor Corporation, Counter Defendant Deckers Outdoor Corporation for
attorney fees 299 , declaration 301 , memorandum in support of motion 300 ,
appendix,, 303 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
Deckers Outdoor Corporation- Joint Motion for Clarification of the Local Rule
54.3 Procedure Regarding Attorney Fees (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 02/26/2020)
03/02/2020 307 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The joint motion for
clarification 305 is granted as follows: the parties' meet-and-confer obligations
shall run from the time the court rules on defendants' liability for attorneys'
fees. Nothing prevents the parties from voluntarily exchanging information
sooner, but the required exchange can wait until the court makes the threshold
determination. The court is not concerned that the delay will necessarily result
in multiple appeals. And even if there are two notices of appeal, it is likely
there will be time to consolidate the proceedings in the court of appeals before
a merits argument occurs. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
03/05/2020 308 MOTION by Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur for
extension of time to file notice of appeal (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
03/05/2020 309 MOTION by Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur to remit
jury award (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
03/05/2020 310 MEMORANDUM by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur in support of
motion for miscellaneous relief 309 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
03/05/2020 311 MOTION by Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygurfor
judgment not withstanding the verdict - renewed motion for judgment as a
matter of law or in the alternative for new trial - counterfeiting claim (Bagley,
03/05/2020 312 MOTION by Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygurfor
judgment not withstanding the verdict - renewed motion for judgment as a
matter of law - Cardy willfulness (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict 312 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
03/05/2020)
32 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
03/05/2020 314 DECLARATION of Mark R. Bagley regarding post-trial motions

Exhibit E)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict 311 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
03/05/2020)
03/05/2020 316 BILL of Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
03/12/2020 317 OBJECTIONS by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur to bill of costs 316
03/12/2020 318 DECLARATION regarding objections 317 - Declaration of Mark R. Bagley
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2020)
04/06/2020 319 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: By agreement of the
parties, the briefing schedules on the pending motions are as follows: 299 300
response is due 4/13/20, reply 4/27/20; 308 response is due 4/27/20, reply
5/11/20; 309 310 response is due 5/4/20, reply 5/18/20; 311 315 response is due
4/27/20, reply 5/11/20; 312 313 response is due 4/27/20, reply 5/18/20; 317
response is due 4/30/20, reply 5/21/20. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
04/06/2020)
04/06/2020 320 MOTION by Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur to stay
execution of money judgment without bond (Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
04/06/2020)
motion to stay 320 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered:
04/06/2020)
04/10/2020 322 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiff's response to
the motion to stay execution of the judgment 320 is due 5/12/20; defendant's
reply is due 5/26/20. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
to motion for attorney fees 299 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
04/27/2020 325 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation for leave to file under seal
file under seal 325 is granted. The court may revisit the seal after ruling on the
pending motions. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
for judgment not withstanding the verdict 311 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
04/27/2020)
33 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
04/27/2020 328 DECLARATION of RiKaleigh C. Johnson regarding memorandum in

opposition to motion 327 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Johnson,
RiKaleigh) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
for judgment not withstanding the verdict 312 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 330 MEMORANDUM by Deckers Outdoor Corporation in Opposition to extension
of time 308 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 331 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporationfor Leave to File Under
04/27/2020 332 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporationto Hold Defendants in
Contempt (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 333 DECLARATION of RiKaleigh C. Johnson regarding motion for miscellaneous
relief 332 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 334 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 7, # 2 Exhibit 8)(Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered:
04/27/2020)
file under seal 331 is granted. The briefing schedule on the motion to hold
defendants in contempt 332 is as follows: defendants' response is due 5/11/20;
plaintiff's reply is due 5/18/20. The court will issue a ruling via cm/ecf. Notices
04/27/2020 336 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation to objections 317
(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paul G. Juettner, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit
opposition to motion 323 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kent R. Raygor, # 2
04/27/2020 338 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Exhibit 2 to
Declaration of Kent R. Raygor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2)(Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 339 APPENDIX memorandum in opposition to motion 329 , memorandum in
opposition to motion 327 , reply 337 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8
Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13
Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18
Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23
Exhibit X, # 24 Exhibit Y, # 25 Exhibit Z, # 26 Exhibit AA, # 27 Exhibit
BB)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
04/27/2020 340 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation Exhibit W and
Exhibit CC regarding appendix,, 339 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit W, # 2 Exhibit
CC)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
34 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM

for miscellaneous relief 309 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
05/04/2020 342 DECLARATION of RiKaleigh C. Johnson regarding memorandum in
opposition to motion 341 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3
8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit
27)(Johnson, RiKaleigh) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
05/11/2020 343 REPLY by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur to MOTION by
Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygurfor judgment not
withstanding the verdict - renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or in
the alternative for new trial - counterfeiting claim 311 (Bagley, Mark)
(Entered: 05/11/2020)
05/11/2020 344 DECLARATION of Mark R. Bagley regarding reply to response to motion,
343 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur for extension of time to
file notice of appeal 308 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
to motion for miscellaneous relief 332 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
05/11/2020 347 DECLARATION of Eddie Oygur regarding memorandum in opposition to
Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
Deckers Outdoor Corporation for leave to file under seal (Juettner, Paul)
(Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 349 MEMORANDUM by Deckers Outdoor Corporation in Opposition to motion to
stay 320 (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 350 DECLARATION of Craig Raymond Douglas regarding memorandum in
opposition to motion 349 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3
Exhibit 3)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
05/12/2020 351 DECLARATION of Kent R. Raygor regarding memorandum in opposition to
motion 349 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 4)(Juettner,
05/12/2020 352 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Counter
Defendant Deckers Outdoor Corporation Memorandum in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Stay Execution of Money Judgment Without Bond
05/12/2020 353 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Counter
Defendant Deckers Outdoor Corporation Exhibits 1-3 to the Declaration of
35 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
Kent R. Raygor regarding declaration 351 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2

05/18/2020 354 REPLY by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Counter Defendant Deckers
Outdoor Corporation to memorandum in opposition to motion 346 (Juettner,
05/18/2020 355 DECLARATION of Paul G. Juettner regarding reply 354 (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
05/18/2020 356 DECLARATION of Kent R. Raygor regarding reply 354 (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur to remit jury award 309
Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygurfor judgment not
withstanding the verdict - renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law -
Cardy willfulness 312 (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/18/2020)
05/18/2020 359 DECLARATION of Mark R. Bagley regarding reply to response to motion 357
05/21/2020 360 REPLY by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur to objections 317 to
Deckers' Bill of Costs (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
Defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur to stay execution of
money judgment without bond 320 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bagley, Mark)
(Entered: 05/26/2020)
Deckers Outdoor Corporation to strike Supplemental Declaration of Eddie
Oygur [361-1] (Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
05/29/2020 363 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiff's motion to
strike the supplemental declaration of Mr. Oygur 362 is denied. The court will
not strike the affidavit, but will consider its timing and arguable inconsistencies
with earlier testimony when assessing defendants' request for a stay. The court
has the added benefit of observing Mr. Oygur during trial and can put his
declarations into context. Striking the supplemental declaration is unnecessary.
06/09/2020 364 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiff's motion to
hold defendants in contempt 332 is denied without prejudice to renewal in the
event defendants fail to implement consistent measures to comply with the
injunction. Defendant Oygur's stubborn, self-righteous hostility to plaintiff's
trademark undermines his credibility (on many issues, but in particular on his
professed inability to control his company's websites and social media
platforms). Defendants did not diligently comply with the injunction.
Nevertheless, it now appears that defendants have come into compliance and a
contempt sanction is unnecessary. If, going forward, defendants fail to geo-
block their internet presence as required by the permanent injunction,
36 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
defendants' contempt of court will be irrefutable. The court will impose a

penalty for such contempt, including denial of defendants' post-trial motions
and striking their opposition to plaintiff's motion for fees and bill of costs, as a
sanction for failure to comply with a court order. The court will also impose a
financial penalty of US$1000 per day (including past days in March, April, and
May 2020) of noncompliance. By 6/15/20, defendants' counsel shall file a
statement on the docket acknowledging on behalf of defendants that the clients
have received and understand this warning. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
06/09/2020)
06/15/2020 365 Response to Court order STATEMENT by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan
Oygur (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 06/15/2020)
07/01/2020 366 NOTICE by Deckers Outdoor Corporation of Related Decision (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit 1)(Juettner, Paul) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
07/13/2020 367 ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 7/13/2020: Defendants'
motions for judgment as a matter of law, 311 , 312 , are denied. Defendants'
motions to remit the jury award and waive the bond requirement to stay
execution of the money judgment pending appeal, 309 , 320 , are denied.
Deckers's motion for attorney's fees, 299 , is granted; Deckers is awarded a
reasonable attorney's fee. Defendants' objections to Deckers's bill of costs, 316
, 317 , are sustained in part. Defendants are taxed $33,304.26. Defendants'
motion regarding time to file a Notice of Appeal, 308 , is denied. [For further
detail see attached order.] Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
08/05/2020 368 Joint Statement Under Local Rule 54.3 on Attorney Fees and Related Non-
Taxable Expenses by Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Juettner, Paul) (Entered:
08/05/2020)
08/05/2020 369 MOTION by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporationfor entry of a Supplemental
Judgment for Attorney Fees and Related Non- Taxable Expenses (Juettner,
08/06/2020 370 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: The Motion for entry of
a Supplemental Judgment for Attorney Fees and Related Non-Taxable
Expenses 369 is granted. The clerk shall enter a supplemental judgment
awarding Plaintiff Deckers US $2,000,000 as reasonable attorney fees and
related non-taxable expenses, plus US $33,304.26 in taxable costs, against
defendants Australian Leather Pty Ltd and Eddie Oygur. Defendants are jointly
and severally liable. Post-judgment interest accrues pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1961. Enter supplemental judgment order. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
08/06/2020)
08/06/2020 371 SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered:
08/06/2020)
08/12/2020 372 NOTICE of appeal by Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur regarding
orders 219 , 296 , 286 , 367 Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0752-17308004.
Receipt number: n (Bagley, Mark) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
08/13/2020 373 MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA
(Attachments: # 1 Minute Order 8/6/20, # 2 Supplemental Judgment 8/6/20).
(smm, ) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
37 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM
08/13/2020 374 Entered in Error (smm, ) Modified on 8/14/2020 (pj, ). (Entered: 08/13/2020)
08/13/2020 375 Entered in Error (smm, ) Modified on 8/14/2020 (pj, ). (Entered: 08/13/2020)
08/14/2020 376 NOTICE of Correction regarding entries 375 and 374 . (pj, ) (Entered:
08/14/2020)
38 of 38 8/14/2020, 2:11 PM

Deckers v. Australian Leather - Notice of Appeal

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Deckers v. Australian Leather - Notice of Appeal

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case: 20-2166 Document: 1-1 Page: 1 Filed: 08/18/2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

PETER R. MARKSTEINER CLERK’S OFFICE

August 18, 2020

Federal Circuit Docket No.: 2020-2166

Date of Docketing: August 18, 2020

Originating Case No.: 1:16-cv-03676

Appellants: Australian Leather Pty Ltd, Adnan Oygur

The following documents are due within 14 days of this notice:

• Entry of Appearance or Notice of Unrepresented Person Appearance. (Fed. Cir. R.

PARTY FILING AND CONTACT INFORMATION: Each counsel representing a party

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

By: E. Dumont, Deputy Clerk

DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION,

AUSTRALIAN LEATHER PTY LTD, ADNAN OYGUR, dba Eddie Oygur,

Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty Ltd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Thomas G. Bruton 312-435-5670

U.S. Federal Court of Appeals

Re: Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty Ltd

By: /s/ P. Janeczek

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Type of case: Patent Infringement Case

Deckers Outdoor Corporation Australian Leather Pty Ltd

Docket No: 16cv3676 Date of Judgment/Order

Cross/Related Appeal: Date of Notice of Appeal:

Appellant ( ) Plaintiff ( ) Defendant (X ) Other (explain) ( )

Appeals Docket Fee Paid? Yes (X ) No ( )

COURT REPORTER: Colleen Conway 312-435-5594

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Thomas G. Bruton 312-435-5670

Re: Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. Australian Leather Pty Ltd

By: /s/ P. Janeczek

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, )

within these orders.

AUSTRALIAN LEATHER PTY. LTD. and

Date: August 12, 2020 By: /s/ Mark R. Bagley _

Attorney for Defendants Australian

on this 12th day of August, 2020.

/s/ Mark R. Bagley _

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DECKERS OUTDOOR CORP.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

them from calling their boots uggs in the United States.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on some of defendants'

Summary judgment 1s appropriate if the movant shows that there is no

unless the admissible evidence as a whole-from both motions-establishes that no

(7th Cir. 2012).

Deckers and Australian Leather each move for summary judgment on

unenforceable and for cancellation of Deckers's trademark registrations. Deckers

moves for summary judgment on Australian Leather's counterclaims for false

designation of origin, false statements in violation of the Lanham Act, fraudulent

procurement of trademark registrations, a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive

equivalents doctrine, and that Deckers fraudulently obtained its trademark

A. Generic Status and the Foreign Equivalents Doctrine

A generic term is one which is commonly used as the name or description of a

Id. Though a federally registered trademark is presumptively valid, 15 U.S.C. § 1115,

an affected party can petition to cancel the registration. 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). In

equivalents doctrine, warrants generic status in the United States. 2

third order for about 2,200 pairs of boots. [214] ,r 69.

name. [173] ,r 51.9

repositioned it as a luxury brand and sold its products in well-known department