Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01200/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01200-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

27

28

- 1 - 05cv1200

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JZCHAK N. WAJCMAN dba BILL

LAWRENCE PRODUCTS and dba BILL

LAWRENCE GUITAR PICKUPS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv1200-LAB (CAB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

TRO APPLICATION

vs. [Dkt No. 79]

WILLI LORENZ STICH, an individual,

Defendant.

On November 17, 2006, the court convened the hearing of plaintiff's Application For

Temporary Restraining Order ("Application") in this trademark infringement and unfair competition

action. Darren J. Quinn, Esq. appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Edward J. McIntyre, Esq. appeared on

behalf of defendant. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendant, as long as the merits of this case remain

decided, from contacting eBay to complain that plaintiff's customers are selling "Bill Lawrence"

products on eBay in violation of defendant's purportedly exclusive right to that mark. The automatic

consequence of the complaints is that eBay removes such listings based on that claim. For the reasons

more fully developed on the record at the hearing, the Application is DENIED. 

Preliminary injunctive relief is properly granted under FED. RULE CIV. P. 65 if the moving

party shows either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in

the moving party’s favor. Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.

Case 3:05-cv-01200-LSP Document 86 Filed 11/17/06 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

27

28

- 2 - 05cv1200

1999); see also Southwest Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir.

2003); Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 340 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2003). "These

two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable

harm increases as the probability of success decreases." Roe v. Anderson, 134 F.3d 1400, 1402 (9th

Cir. 1998). Even if the court is uncertain of the moving party's likelihood of success on the merits,

a TRO may still issue if the moving party convinces the court that the balance of hardships tips in its

favor. Shelley, 344 F.3d at 917; see Nat'l Center for immigrants Rights, Inc. v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365,

1369 (9th Cir. 1984) ("the greater the relative hardship to the moving party, the less probability of

success on the merits must be shown"). The court may also consider the public interest in granting

a TRO. Shelley, 344 F.3d at 917. In addition, in this case, prior restraint considerations impacting

commercial speech rights affect the analysis.

The court considers plaintiff is exposed to irreparable harm in his commercial relationships

if defendant persists in reporting to eBay instances of "Bill Lawrence" product offerings by vendors

who purchase plaintiff's "Bill Lawrence" goods for distribution through eBay and if plaintiff

ultimately prevails. However, ownership of the mark is the dispositive issue in this case. Competing

evidentiary submissions and document disputes suggest a factfinder will be needed to resolve at least

some if not all of the parties' disputes, as will become clearer when the court issues its summary

judgment ruling. Serious questions of law are presented by the Application, but the state of the

evidentiary disputes prevents any principled finding of which side is most likely ultimately to prevail

on the merits. In addition, First Amendment commercial speech and prior restraint issues are raised

by the request to enjoin defendant from communicating to eBay the existence of a mark he holds to

the "Bill Lawrence" name, even though the extent of that mark and the viability of his asserted right

to exclusive use is not clear, and even though plaintiff is pursuing his own registration of the "Bill

Lawrence" mark in on-going adversary proceedings which could result in cancellation of defendant's

mark. In the meantime, defendant appears to hold the registration he has reported to eBay. Defendant

represents he has been reporting his complaints to eBay since he began to participate in an eBay

program of ownership rights reporting in 2003, although plaintiff represents eBay's listing or account

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-01200-LSP Document 86 Filed 11/17/06 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

27

28

- 3 - 05cv1200

removal sanction has only recently been implemented against plaintiff's vendor customers, triggering

the Application. 

Despite the serious repercussions for plaintiff's customers and plaintiff's commercial

relationships flowing from defendant's conduct, applying the standards for according injunctive relief,

the court is unable to conclude plaintiff has carried his burden to justify the issuance of a restraining

order to forbid defendant from complaining to eBay about plaintiff's "Bill Lawrence" product listings

while the ownership rights to that mark remain in dispute. Accordingly, the Application is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2006

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01200-LSP Document 86 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 3