Gojo Industries, Inc. v. Innovative Biodefense, Inc. et al
Filing
95
OPINION & ORDER. Defendant's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 11/12/2015) (lmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
:
GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC.,
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
INNOVATIVE BIODEFENSE, INC.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------X
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: November 12, 2015
15 Civ. 2946 (PAC)
OPINION & ORDER
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:
Defendant Innovative Biodefense, Inc. (“IBD”) moves to preliminarily enjoin Plaintiff
GOJO Industries, Inc. (“GOJO”) and various nonparty distributors that sell GOJO products from
making allegedly improper representations that GOJO products are FDA approved and from
using government agency logos in an online video. The motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings Lanham Act claims, alleging that Defendant engaged in false advertising
and deceptive business practices by representing that Defendant’s Zylast hand sanitizing
products are “FDA approved” and by deceptively using the FDA logo in their advertising.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant made false and misleading representations about Plaintiff’s
Purell hand sanitizing products. On April 30, 2015, the parties stipulated to and the Court
approved a Stipulation and Order preliminarily enjoining IBD and its authorized agent from
representing that Zylast products are FDA approved and from using the FDA logo in
advertisements. Dkt. 32.
1
On September 29, 2015, Defendant filed a letter seeking to preliminarily enjoin Plaintiff
(i) from making “FDA approved” representations in the sale of GOJO products and (ii) from
using CDC, World Health Organization, and Health Canada logos in an educational
handwashing video on the Purell website. Dkt. 83.
Regarding the “FDA approved” representations, Defendant submitted printouts of
websites that appear to sell GOJO products and use the “FDA approved” language. Dkt. 83 Ex.
C. The websites belong to nonparty distributors Touchfree Concepts, Hubert, RFV Sales Inc.,
JanitorialSupplies4Less.com, and an unnamed distributor based in Nigeria. Id. In subsequent
briefing, filed on November 4, 2015, Defendant included screenshots of websites belonging to
additional nonparty distributors Wesco, Hantover, Conney, Hippo Industries, and American
Paper that also appear to sell GOJO products and use the “FDA approved” language. Dkt. 90
Ex. A, E. Defendant also submitted a screenshot of the Facebook page of Harbinger National, a
nonparty independent sales representative, which includes posts from May 2014 stating that
Purell hand sanitizer “Kills the most germs.” Dkt. 90 Ex. E. Finally, Defendant submitted a
March 2014 email chain between GOJO’s National Account Director and a Hantover Marketing
Coordinator in which the GOJO employee provides instructions on the correct names for GOJO
products and provides current product images. Dkt. 90 Ex. G. Defendant asserts that a
preliminary injunction is necessary because these various entities are Plaintiff’s “distributors or
agents” and that Plaintiff has made no effort to stop them from making improper representations.
Dkt. 90 at 2. Regarding the logos in the educational video, Defendant submitted a screenshot
from the video that includes the allegedly improper CDC, World Health Organization, and
Health Canada logos. Dkt. 83 Ex. C, D.
Plaintiff argues that a preliminary injunction is improper because the nonparty
2
distributors are not GOJO’s agents or under GOJO’s control and it has removed the logos from
the educational video on the Purell website. Dkt. 92. The Court held a hearing on November 9,
2015, at which Defendant did not introduce any additional evidence.
DISCUSSION
Whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the
district court. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232, 237 (2d Cir. 2001). An
injunction binds the parties and their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). “In order for a nonparty to be bound, that entity must either aid and abet the
defendant or be legally identified with it.” Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub. Group, Inc.,
25 F. Supp. 2d 372, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
The Court has reviewed and considered the exhibits which Defendant has offered and
were received in evidence, as well as the arguments of both parties. Defendant argues that a
preliminary injunction can bind the various nonparty distributors because they are GOJO’s
agents. But Defendant has not introduced any evidence of an agency relationship with any of the
distributors. “‘Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent
by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and
consent by the other so to act.’” Merill Lynch Inv. Managers v. Optibase, Ltd., 337 F.3d 125,
130 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 (1958)). Defendant has
introduced no evidence suggesting GOJO’s control over the distributors; the mere fact that the
distributors sell GOJO products is inadequate to establish an agency relationship. See
Paramount, 25 F. Supp. 2d at 375 (refusing to extend a preliminary injunction to nonparty
distributors merely because they sold defendant publisher’s book). The March 2014 email chain,
in which a GOJO employee provides basic information about product names and images, does
3
not provide adequate evidence of GOJO’s control even over Hantover, let alone the other
distributors. Since Defendant has failed to demonstrate that any of the nonparty distributors can
be lawfully enjoined, the motion for a preliminary injunction regarding “FDA approved”
representations is denied.1
The Court also denies the motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the logos in the
educational video. An injunction is unnecessary based on Plaintiff’s representations in its
briefing and at oral argument that it no longer includes the logos in the educational video.
Indeed, a recent visit to the Purell website confirms that the video has been removed entirely.
See “How is Purell® Instant Hand Sanitizer Used?”, www.purell.com/faq (last visited November
11, 2015 10:00 am).
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
Dated: New York, New York
November 12, 2015
SO ORDERED
________________________
PAUL A. CROTTY
United States District Judge
1
Defendant also argues that a preliminary injunction binding GOJO’s distributors is proper as a matter of equity
since, pursuant to the mutually consented to Stipulation and Order, IBD agreed to enjoin its distributor Aquarius
Global Energy Partners, LLC (“Aquarius”). The Court disagrees; it is inapposite to compare Aquarius to the
distributors that IBD seeks to enjoin. When the Stipulation and Order was approved by the Court, Defendant
represented that Aquarius acted as IBD’s authorized agent, so there was no disputed question of fact as to whether
there was an agency relationship between them. See Transcript of April 24, 2015 Hearing, Dkt. 40, at 7. Here, on
the other hand, Plaintiff asserts that the various distributors are not its authorized agents, and IBD has not made any
showing to the contrary.
4
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?