Sedusa Studio, Inc. v. Hellman

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Whyte denying 2 , 12 , 15 Motions for Preliminary Injunction; (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Sedusa Studio, Inc. ("Sedusa") moves for a preliminary injunction against defendants Lisa Hellman ("Hellman") and iPole Studios ("iPole") to enjoin defendants from using plaintiffs "iPole" service mark. The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice. If Sedusa chooses to reapply for a preliminary injunction, it should be careful to authenticate any exhibits that are offered and support all factual contentions by declaration. The court mentioned at oral argument that the exhibits to the complaint could not be found. Since the matter was submitted, the court has found the exhibits but nevertheless concludes that a further showing must be made to justify a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction in a trademark case requires either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION--No. C-09-02002 RMW JAS E-FILED on 8/22/09 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION SEDUSA STUDIO, INC, a California Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LISA HELLMAN, an individual d/b/a IPOLE STUDIOS and DOES 1-10, Defendants. No. C-09-02002 RMW ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [Re Docket No. 15] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 questions going to the merits and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff's favor. GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1204-05 (9th Cir. 2000). The requirements to show a likelihood of success on the merits of a trademark infringement claim include 1) possession of a valid, protectable trademark, and 2) that the challenged use of the mark is likely to cause confusion. Applied Information Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit has developed eight factors, called the Sleekcraft factors, to guide the determination of a likelihood of confusion. Goto.com 202 F.3d at 1205. DATED: 8/21/09 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION--No. C-09-02002 RMW JAS 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of this document has been sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Nicholas Heimlich Counsel for Defendants: Lisa Hellmann 2057 Arena Blvd Sacramento, CA 95834 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. nickheimlich@nickheimlichlaw.com Dated: 8/22/09 JAS Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION--No. C-09-02002 RMW JAS 3

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?