Hakkasan LV, LLC et al v. Adamczyk et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying without prejudice 2 Motion for TRO and denying without prejudice 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/17/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

HAKKASAN LV LLC, a Nevada limited
)
liability company, HAKKASAN LIMITED, a )
foreign private limited company,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
MARK DANIEL ADAMCZYK, an individual, )
and iDRIVE ORLANDO, a foreign limited
)
liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01717-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court are the ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

13

(ECF No. 2) and ex parte Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) filed by Hakkasan

14

LV LLC and Hakkasan Limited (“Plaintiffs”) on October 16, 2014. Plaintiffs have alleged that

15

Mark Daniel Adamczyk and iDrive Orlando (“Defendants”) have, inter alia, committed

16

cybersquatting and trademark infringement through the operation of two websites bearing the

17

domain names of <hakkasanbottleservice.com> and <hakkasan.net>. (Complaint, ECF No. 1).

18

In order to succeed on its motion, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must

19

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in

20

the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

21

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20

22

(2008). Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear

23

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22.

24
25

In the Ninth Circuit, “actual irreparable harm must be demonstrated to obtain a
permanent injunction in a trademark infringement action.” Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v.
Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1249 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, while “loss of
Page 1 of 2

1

control over business reputation and damage to goodwill could constitute irreparable harm,” a

2

court’s finding of such harm cannot be “grounded in platitudes rather than evidence.” Id. at

3

1250.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence with their motions showing
irreparable harm. Instead Plaintiffs merely argue that
Defendants’ actions are likely to cause consumers to falsely believe that the
services provided by Defendants are somehow endorsed by or affiliated with
Plaintiffs’ high quality restaurant and nightclub services. Thus, Plaintiffs will
suffer damage to their goodwill and reputation as a result of Defendants’ actions
because Plaintiffs have no control over the type and/or quality of the services
provided by Defendants in connection with the Infringing Domain Names and
corresponding website.

11

(Mot. for TRO 9:21-10:10, ECF No. 2). “[S]peculation on future harm, [however,] does not

12

meet the standard of showing ‘likely’ irreparable harm.” Herb Reed Enterprises, 736 F.3d at

13

1250. Currently, there is no showing before the Court that Plaintiffs have been harmed in the

14

way they allege in their motions. The Court cannot grant these motions without such a

15

showing. Accordingly,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

17

(ECF No. 2) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) are DENIED without

18

prejudice.

19

17

DATED this _____ day of October, 2014.

20
21
22

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

23
24
25

Page 2 of 2