United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina
FINAL CONSENT JUDGMENT
J. Conrad, Jr. United States District Judge
matter having come before the Court on the parties' Joint
Motion for Entry of this Final Consent Judgment, (Doc. No.
9), and the Court being fully advised in the matter, it
used herein, “Plaintiff” refers to AR15.Com, LLC.
used herein, “Defendant” refers to Lucien Guy
Morin, II, individually and d/b/a Ridgeback Tactical
Defendant consents to the subject matter and personal
jurisdiction of this Court.
Since at least as early as October 9, 2006, AR15 has used a
bolt face logo (the “Trademark”) on, and in
connection with, various goods and services. The Trademark is
Plaintiff is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 3, 461, 149;
4, 170, 316; 4, 755, 204; 4, 942, 800; and 4, 942, 804 for,
and common law rights in, the Trademark in connection with a
wide variety of goods and services, including but not limited
to firearms; firearm sights; silencers for firearms; cases
for firearms; covers for firearms; pouches; namely, shot
pouches and cartridge pouches; belts for military equipment;
shell belts; woven belts for military equipment; component
parts for pistols; rifles and shotguns; firearm hand guards;
gun barrels; gun mounts; gun stocks; magazines for weapons;
and ammunition (U.S. Reg. No. 3, 461, 149) and on-line and
physical retail store services (U.S. Reg. No. 4, 755, 204).
These federally registered marks are on the Principal
Register, and U.S. Reg. No. 3, 461, 149 has become
incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
the years, AR15 has developed considerable goodwill in its
business and in its Trademark. AR15's Trademark has
acquired secondary meaning, and it has become associated with
AR15 as a source of quality goods and services.
Defendant owns and operates the online retail store located
at https://ridgebacktacticalgear.com; a Twitter
account located at https://twitter.com/RidgebackT;
and a Facebook account located at
offer for sale, inter alia, firearms-related gear
and survival gear. Defendant has used the following trademark
on and in connection with his online retail store and social
Plaintiff alleges that: (i) Defendant's trademark as
depicted above is confusingly similar to the Trademark and
(ii) Defendant's unauthorized use of such a confusingly
similar trademark will cause confusion, deception, and
mistake, because the relevant public will believe that
Defendant's goods and services are approved by, sponsored
by, or affiliated with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that unless and until Defendant's
unauthorized use of such a confusingly similar trademark is
permanently enjoined, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable
injury, and the public will be confused and deceived.
accordingly ORDERED and
ADJUDGED that, the parties' Joint Motion
for Entry of this Final Consent Judgment, (Doc. No. ...