Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation v. McAfee

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Hearing set for April 18, 2014 is VACATED. Within 90 days from the date of this Order, Cognizant shall file a statement stating what further relief it may request. Cognizant shall serve this Order on Defendant by all reasonable means. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/16/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION,

8

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

9

v.

10

JOHN MCAFEE,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-01146-WHO

12
On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation

13
14

(“Plaintiff” or “Cognizant”) filed this action seeking to enjoin defendant John McAfee, d/b/a

15

Future Tense Central (“Defendant” or “McAfee”), from infringing on its trademarks. I issued a

16

temporary restraining order on March 21, 2014, and set out a briefing schedule for McAfee to

17

show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. I ordered Cognizant to make all

18

reasonable efforts to serve McAfee.
On April 4, 2014, I extended the temporary restraining order for 14 days and deemed

19
20

McAfee served based on Cognizant’s many efforts to serve him. Indeed, Cognizant presented

21

credible evidence that McAfee received actual notice of this action. But he still has not appeared

22

in this action or timely responded to the order to show cause by April 11, 2014—his deadline to do

23

so.

24

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), I find this matter suitable for determination without

25

oral argument and VACATE the hearing currently scheduled for April 18, 2014. Based on

26

Cognizant’s memorandum of points and authorities, declarations and attached exhibits, and

27

complaint on file in this action, and based on the facts and representations therein, I find that

28

(1) I have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action;

1
2
3

(2) Cognizant sought and obtained two U.S. Trademark Registrations (Nos. 2,484,075 and
2,498,530) for the COGNIZANT Mark (the “COGNIZANT Mark”);
(3) Defendant announced his intent to release a download application for mobile devices

4

and tablets (the “Infringing Application”) under the name “Cognizant” (the “Infringing Trade

5

Name and Mark”) on or before March 20, 2014;

6
7
8
9

(4) Cognizant has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark
infringement claim;
(5) Cognizant has shown a likelihood that it will suffer irreparable injury if the temporary
restraining order is not granted because Cognizant, which is well-known and respected in the
business world, will lose control over its reputation and will suffer a loss of goodwill if McAfee,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

who is well-known and has received press coverage about the Infringing Application, releases the

12

Infringing Application;

13

(6) Cognizant has shown that the balance of equities tips in favor of Cognizant;

14

(7) Cognizant has shown that injunctive relief is in the public interest; and

15

(8) There is likely no adequate remedy at law.

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a preliminary injunction is entered, effective immediately,

17

restraining, enjoining and requiring Defendant McAfee, d/b/a Future Tense Central, and each of

18

his respective officers, directors, partners, agents, subcontractors, servants, employees,

19

representatives, franchisees, licensees, subsidiaries, parents, and related companies or entities, and

20

all others acting in concert or participation with Defendant with regard to the matters described

21

herein, are preliminarily enjoined from:

22
23

(1) using the Infringing Trade Name and Mark or any variation or colorable imitation
thereof in relation to the “Infringing Application”;

24

(2) infringing the COGNIZANT Mark;

25

(3) representing that Defendant is employed by, associated with, or in any way related to

26
27
28

Cognizant; and
(4) offering for sale, advertising, or promoting goods and services under the Infringing
Trade Name and Mark, or any variation or colorable imitation thereof, in any manner not
2

1
2

authorized by Cognizant or the Court.
Within 90 days from the date of this Order, Cognizant shall file a statement stating what

3

further relief it may request from me. Cognizant shall serve this Order on Defendant by all

4

reasonable means.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 16, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3