Apple Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

Filing 25

MOTION to Shorten Time TO HEAR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Apple Inc.. (Eberhart, David) (Filed on 4/13/2011)

Download PDF
1 DAVID R. EBERHART (S.B. #195474) 2 RYAN J. PADDEN (S.B. #204515) 3 DAVID J. SEPANIK (S.B. #221527) 4 5 6 7 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 OAKLAND DIVISION 12 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. Case No. CV 11-01327 PJH PLAINTIFF APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; CASE NO. CV 11-01327 PJH 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-3, and 7-1, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) requests 2 that the Court set a hearing prior to June 22, 2011 on Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 3 (the “P.I. Motion”). Apple filed the P.I. Motion earlier today. Apple understands that the first 4 available civil law and motion hearing date is June 22. However, Apple is suffering significant 5 irreparable harm from Amazon’s ongoing, unauthorized use of Apple’s APP STORE trademark 6 and requests an earlier hearing. 7 As set forth in the P.I. Motion, Apple invested three years of effort and hundreds of 8 millions of dollars to establish a public association between Apple and its APP STORE mobile 9 software download service. Very recently, Amazon launched a competing service using the mark 10 APPSTORE. Amazon’s unlawful appropriation of Apple’s trademark infringes and dilutes 11 Apple’s mark, and the P.I. Motion seeks an order preliminarily enjoining Amazon’s use. 12 Absent an injunction, Amazon’s use threatens to confuse consumers by, for example, 13 causing them to conclude falsely that Amazon’s service is associated with Apple. This is 14 particularly likely because Amazon is widely known as a reseller of other companies’ products. 15 Moreover, Apple is suffering ongoing irreparable harm through Amazon’s dilution of the APP 16 STORE mark, both by blurring—lessening the public association between the APP STORE mark 17 and Apple’s service—and tarnishment—Amazon offers software that increases security risks to 18 customers and thereby harms the reputation of Apple’s APP STORE mark and service. All of 19 this harm is irreparable. 20 Amazon has stated that it will oppose any injunctive relief. Apple asked that Amazon join 21 in this request to hear the P.I. Motion before June 22, but Amazon had not responded by the time 22 Apple filed this request. There have been no prior modifications to any hearing schedule, 23 although the parties stipulated that the time for Amazon to answer or otherwise respond to the 24 complaint be extended fourteen days, up to and including April 25, 2011. No other time 25 modifications have been sought in the case, and the granting of this motion will have no effect on 26 the scheduling of the case beyond the timing of the preliminary injunction briefing and hearing. 27 /// 28 /// APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; CASE NO. CV 11-01327 PJH 1 2 For the foregoing reasons, Apple requests that the Court set a hearing date for the P.I. Motion prior to June 22, 2011. 3 4 Dated: April 13, 2011 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 5 6 By /s/ David R. Eberhart David R. Eberhart Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; CASE NO. CV 11-01327 PJH

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?