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)

1

DAVID R. EBERHART (S.B. #195474)
[e-mail]

2

RYAN J. PADDEN (S.B. #204515)

3

DAVID J. SEPANIK (S.B. #221527)

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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