Symantec Corp. today announced it has been granted a default judgment of $3.1 million against Sam Jain for selling counterfeit Symantec software and violating Symantec's intellectual property rights.
Specifically, the judgment found in favour of Symantec against Jain for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. In addition, the Court enjoined Jain and anyone acting in concert with him from infringing Symantec's intellectual property rights again in any way or from further misleading consumers in the future by using representations or imitations of genuine Symantec trademarks, service marks or copyrighted materials.
William Plante, director of corporate security for Symantec said,
"Of all the software piracy cases we've been involved with so far, this one in particular posed a number of serious threats to our customers and consumers at large. Jain and his cohorts used pop-up ads and false or misleading advertising to harass, confuse and deceive unsuspecting consumers into purchasing counterfeit software. We're particularly gratified with this judgment."
The award concluded legal action Symantec filed against Sam Jain and others in April 2004. In the suit, Symantec alleged that Jain and his co-defendants used pop-up ads that misled consumers into believing that their Symantec software was about to expire and needed to be renewed to maintain functionality. Symantec also alleged that some of the pop-up ads re-directed unsuspecting consumers to a Web site selling the defendant's own software. Finally, Sam Jain, working under names like Greatbizdeals.com, DiscountBob.com and Buysmarter.com, also sent out thousands of spammed e-mails that advertised counterfeit Symantec software at extremely discounted prices.
Jain avoided being served with papers regarding the case for several months by leaving the country, and did not respond to the suit until the court granted Symantec's motion for service by alternative means. He later claimed he believed he had never been properly served. However, depositions disclosed that Jain had knowledge and was told about the case by one of his parents and had discussed the case all along with his attorney and at least one of his business colleagues, co-defendant James Reno.
|
|
Reader Comments: 0
