Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00701/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00701-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SILVER VIEW SUPERMARKET, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-0701 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE APPLICATION FOR

EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff Philip Morris USA Inc.’s ex parte application, filed

January 31, 2006, for a temporary restraining order against defendant Silver View

Supermarket (“Silver View”), by which application plaintiff seeks to enjoin Silver View from

purchasing or selling counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes. In an order filed February 1, 2006,

the Court ordered plaintiff to file supplemental briefing on the following issues: (1) whether

Silver View operated the supermarket at which plaintiff has purchased counterfeit Marlboro

cigarettes; and (2) whether the Court may issue an order permitting plaintiff to inspect

Silver View’s inventory and to seize and retain control of any counterfeit cigarettes found in

Silver View’s inventory.

Having reviewed plaintiff’s supplemental briefing, the Court finds plaintiff has

adequately demonstrated that Silver View operated the supermarket at which the

counterfeit cigarettes were purchased. Plaintiff has not demonstrated, however, that it is

entitled to the requested seizure order absent compliance with the requirements of

Case 3:06-cv-00701-MMC Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 2
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

15 U.S.C. § 1116(d).

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s application, without prejudice to

plaintiff’s filing an application in compliance with the requirements of § 1116(d).

If plaintiff elects to forgo its request for a seizure order, plaintiff may so advise the

Court, and the Court will issue the requested temporary restraining order with appropriate

modification in accordance with the above findings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00701-MMC Document 15 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 2