Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01807/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01807-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Takhar Borthers Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1807-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(doc. #2), filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. Having considered the parties’

memoranda, the Court, in the exercise of its broad discretion, finds that the

motion should be denied without prejudice.

The plaintiffs have sought preliminary injunctive relief in this breach of

contract and trademark infringement action as a result of the defendants’ initial

failure to remove all of the signage containing the plaintiffs’ trademarks from their

service stations/mini-markets subsequent to the plaintiffs’ termination of their

am/pm® and ARCO® franchises. While it is undisputed that the defendants’

businesses still showed some signage containing the plaintiffs’ trademarks at the

time the preliminary injunction motion was filed, the defendants assert in their

verified response to the preliminary injunction motion that all use of the plaintiffs’

Case 2:07-cv-01807-PGR Document 25 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 2 -

trademarks has been stopped in that neither of the former franchised businesses

currently has any visible signage linked to the plaintiffs’ trademarks. The plaintiffs

do not contend in their reply that the alleged infringement has not in fact ceased. 

The issue before the Court is therefore whether there is now any valid basis for a

preliminary injunction given the defendants’ current lack of use of the plaintiffs’

trademarks.

While a court’s power to grant injunctive relief clearly survives

discontinuance of the illegal conduct, it must be kept in mind that the sole

purpose of an action for injunctive relief is to forestall future violations. United

States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 897-98 (1953). Thus,

while the Court cannot conclude that the need for injunctive relief is moot simply

because of the defendants’ cessation of their allegedly unlawful conduct, Federal

Trade Commission v. Affordable Media LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir. 1999),

the defendants’ profession that the conduct sought to be enjoined has ceased is

an important factor to be considered in determining the appropriateness of

granting an injunction against now-discontinued acts. W.T. Grant & Co., 345 U.S.

at 633, 73 S.Ct. at 897; accord, City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455

U.S. 283, 289, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 1074 (1982). The plaintiffs, as the moving parties,

bear the burden of persuading the Court that injunctive relief is still necessary

because there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation. W.T.Grant &

Co., 345 U.S. at 633, 73 S.Ct. at 898.

The Court cannot conclude that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted

because the current record does not establish that there is any real threat for, or

any probability of, any recurring infringement by the defendants. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Request for Hearing on Motion for

Case 2:07-cv-01807-PGR Document 25 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 3 -

Preliminary Injunction and Issuance of Order to Show Cause (doc. #13) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(doc. #2) is denied without prejudice.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01807-PGR Document 25 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 3