Chobani, LLC v. The Dannon Company, Inc.
ORDER: Denying the # 5 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Show Cause Hearing on Dannon's request for Preliminary Injunction is set for 1/19/2016 at 11:00 AM in Utica before Judge David N. Hurd. Show Cause Response due by 1/14/2016 by 12 :00 noon. Dannon shall file and serve Reply papers by 1/15/2016 by 12:00 noon. If Dannon nevertheless wishes to engage in expedited discovery in advance of this hearing, it should inform the Court of its request in writing so that the hearing on the preliminary injunction may be adjourned to a date in February 2016.Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 1/11/2016. (jmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THE DANNON COMPANY, INC.,
----------------------------------DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
On January 8, 2016, plaintiff Chobani, LLC ("Chobani") filed this action against the
Dannon Company, Inc. ("Dannon") seeking a declaration pursuant to the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, that none of the advertising claims made in a recent
campaign violate § 43(a) of the Lanham Act or related New York state law. Dannon filed an
answer and asserted counterclaims pursuant to the Lanham Act and related state law for
false advertising and product disparagement.
Dannon now seeks a temporary restraining order pending the entry of a preliminary
injunction along with an order directing interstitial, expedited discovery. Dannon's requested
preliminary relief sweeps broadly, seeking to preclude Chobani not only from "disseminating
or causing to be disseminated" a certain commercial and print advertisement, but also "any
similar product claims relating to Dannon, in any form or medium" in connection with its
current product advertising campaign.
A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted if
the movant can clearly show the need for one. See generally FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). To
obtain such relief, a plaintiff must establish that (1) it will suffer irreparable harm absent
injunctive relief and (2) either (a) that it is likely to succeed on the merits or (b) that there are
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, and
that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party. See, e.g., Reckitt
Benckiser Inc. v. Motomco Ltd., 2010 WL 3418493 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2010).
Upon careful review of all of Dannon's submissions, the motion for a temporary
restraining order will be denied. However, an expedited briefing schedule will be set for
argument on the request for a preliminary injunction. In light of this truncated timeline,
Dannon's request for expedited discovery will be denied as set forth below.
Therefore, it is
1. Dannon's motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED;
2. A hearing on Dannon's request for a preliminary injunction will be held on Tuesday,
January 19, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.;
3. Chobani shall file and serve opposition papers, if any, by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday,
January 14, 2016;
4. Dannon shall file and serve reply papers, if any, by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, January
5. If Dannon nevertheless wishes to engage in expedited discovery in advance of this
hearing, it should inform the Court of its request in writing so that the hearing on the
preliminary injunction may be adjourned to a date in February 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2016
Utica, New York.
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?