Buyer's Direct Inc. v. Belk, Inc., et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 33 Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Senior Judge Malcolm J. Howard on 8/11/2011. (Heath, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

NO. 5:10-CV-65-H

BUYER'S DIRECT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

BELK, INC. and BELK
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants.

This

matter

is

before

the

court

motion for preliminary injunction.

on

plaintiff's

A hearing was

Uni ted States Magistrate Judge David W.

held before

Daniel on this matter,

and Judge Daniel filed a memorandum and recommendation
Plaintiff
replied.

filed

objections

to

the

renewed

M&R

and

("M&R").

defendants

have

This matter is ripe for adjudication.

Federal district courts have the power to grant preliminary
injunctions

to prevent

the violation of patent

rights.

Titan

Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1375
Cir.

2009).

seeking

a

(Fed.

The Supreme Court has articulated that a plaintiff
preliminary

injunction

establishing each of four factors:
on the merits;

(2)

bears
(1)

the

burden

of

a likelihood of success

a likelihood that he will suffer irreparable
1

harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
of equities tips in his favor;

and

(3)

that the balance

that the issuance of a

(4)

preliminary injunction would be in the public interest.

Winter

v.

(2008).

A

Natural Res.
preliminary

DeL

Council,

inj unction

is

Inc.,

129

S.Ct.

an extraordinary

365,

374

remedy.

Id.

at

failed

to

376.

In the

M&R,

Judge Daniel

found

that

plaintiff

carry its burden of demonstrating a likelihood of prevailing on
the merits of its patent infringement claim as to the Kim Rogers
slipper.
its

Judge Daniel also found that plaintiff failed to carry

burden

of

demonstrating

a

likelihood of

irreparable

harm

absent a preliminary injunction.
The

court has

reviewed

plaintiff as well as

the M&R,

the

party

demonstrating a

seeking

likelihood of

and finds,

irreparable

To establish irreparable

preliminary

a

filed by

that plaintiff has failed to

harm absent a preliminary injunction.
harm,

obj ections

the reply filed by defendant,

for the reasons stated in the M&R,
carry its burden of

the

injunction

must

demonstrate an injury that cannot be effectively remedied by an
award of monetary damages.

The court finds, despite plaintiff's

objections,

no

slipper

and

Furthermore,

that
has

Belk
no

is
plans

longer

to

do

so

selling
again

the
in

Kim
the

Rogers
future.

the court finds that monetary damages would likely
2

be adequate to compensate plaintiff for past losses.

Therefore,

the

burden of

court

finds

that plaintiff has not

carried

its

show

likelihood

showing a likelihood of irreparable harm.
Because

plaintiff

irreparable harm,

has

failed

to

a

an injunction is not warranted. 1

of

Therefore,

plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.

-w

This

~~day

of August 2011.

M~--Senior United States District Judge

At Greenville, NC
#26

1 The court does not reach Judge Daniel's alternate finding that
plaintiff failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a
likelihood of success on the merits of its claim.

3