Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Dyson Inc.

Filing 30

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered denying 6 Motion for TRO; denying 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
EURO-PRO OPERATING LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DYSON INC.,
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 14-cv-13720-IT

ORDER
February 19, 2015
TALWANI, D.J.
On September 26, 2014, Euro-Pro Operating LLC (“Euro-Pro”) filed suit against Dyson
Inc. (“Dyson”) in this court (“Massachusetts action”), alleging that Dyson continued to advertise
that its DC65 “Animal” vacuum had “twice the suction” of any other vacuum after Euro-Pro’s
introduction of its “Shark Navigator Lift-Away” vacuum rendered the advertisement false. On
November 25, 2014, Dyson filed a complaint against Euro-Pro in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (“Illinois action”), alleging that Euro-Pro falsely advertised
that its vacuum “deep cleans carpets better than Dyson’s best vacuum.” See Dyson, Inc. v.
Euro-Pro Operating LLC et al., No. 14-cv-9442 (N.D. Ill. 2014). On December 4, 2014, EuroPro filed a motion in the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss, transfer, or stay the Illinois
action under the first-filed rule. On December 11, 2014, Euro-Pro filed a motion in this court to
enjoin Dyson from proceeding in the Illinois action under the first-filed rule. On December 22,
2014, the Northern District of Illinois court denied Euro-Pro’s motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay
the Illinois action, finding that the Massachusetts and Illinois actions are not duplicative.
Presently before this court is Euro-Pro’s Motion to Enjoin Dyson from Proceeding with

Second-Filed Related Action [#6]. Euro-Pro argues that the first-filed rule dictates that this court
enjoin Dyson from proceeding with the Illinois action because Euro-Pro filed suit in
Massachusetts first and the Massachusetts and Illinois actions are substantially similar. Dyson
responds that the actions do not have sufficient similarity to invoke the rule and deprive Dyson
of its chosen forum for its claims. For essentially the reasons set forth in the Northern District of
Illinois court’s order, and for the reasons elaborated below, this court denies Euro-Pro’s Motion
to Enjoin Dyson from Proceeding with Second-Filed Related Action [#6].
“Where identical actions are proceeding concurringly in two federal courts, entailing
duplicative litigation and a waste of judicial resources, the first filed action is generally preferred
in a choice-of-venue decision.” Cianbro Corp. v. Curran-Lavoie, Inc., 814 F.2d 7, 11 (1st Cir.
1987). “Where the overlap between the two suits is nearly complete, the usual practice is for the
court that first had jurisdiction to resolve the issues and the other court to defer.” TPM Holdings,
Inc. v. Intra-Gold Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996). “But where the overlap between the
suits is less than complete, the judgment is made case by case . . . based on such factors as the
extent of overlap, the likelihood of conflict, the comparative advantage and the interest of each
forum in resolving the dispute.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
Euro-Pro fails to demonstrate sufficient similarity between the Massachusetts and Illinois
actions to warrant an injunction in this case. The Massachusetts and Illinois actions challenge
different advertising campaigns (Dyson’s “twice the suction” campaign versus Euro-Pro’s “deep
cleans carpets better” campaign) that relate to different features of the parties’ vacuums (suction
versus deep cleaning) that are governed by different professional standards (ASTM F558 for
measuring suction in air watts versus ASTM F608-13 for evaluating the removal of embedded
dirt from carpets) and supported by different testing and criteria. Accordingly, the court finds

2

that there is little overlap between the two actions and a low likelihood of conflict between this
court and the Northern District of Illinois court. Moreover, the court finds that Euro-Pro has not
established that Massachusetts is a significantly more convenient forum or has a greater interest
in resolving Dyson’s claims.
For the above-stated reasons, Euro-Pro’s Motion to Enjoin Dyson from Proceeding with
Second-Filed Related Action [#6] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 19, 2015

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

3