Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-01647/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-01647-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

Case No.: 3:20-cv-01647-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

 1 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FUTURE MOTION, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEPHEN HERBERT, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:20-cv-01647-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR A 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

Re: Dkt. No. 6 

 On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff Future Motion, Inc. filed, ex parte, a motion for a temporary 

restraining order against Defendant Stephen Herbert. Ex Parte Motion for TRO and Preliminary 

Injunction (“TRO Mot.”), Dkt. No 6. On March 10, 2020 the case was reassigned to the 

undersigned. Dkt. No. 17. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion. 

 This case arises under California contract law and the Lanham Act. Plaintiff creates and 

sells the ONEWHEEL ®, which is a “self-balancing electric vehicle.” TRO Mot. at 6. Plaintiff 

requires all of its distributors and dealers to sign an agreement that includes various restrictions on 

pricing, advertising, and other dealer activities. Id. at 7. Dealers must agree to sell Plaintiff’s 

products from brick-and-mortar stores—Plaintiff prohibits its dealers from selling the 

ONEWHEEL ® online due to safety concerns. Id. Plaintiff’s “vehicles” use high-density lithium 

ion batters, which can be damaged if stored or shipped improperly. Id. Improper storage or 

shipping could lead to unexpected battery failure and result in rider injury or even death. Id. at 7–

8. 

 Defendant, doing business as “Tactical Sky,” signed a dealer agreement with Future 

Case 5:20-cv-01647-EJD Document 18 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 3:20-cv-01647-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Motion in 2017. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges (and provides evidence) that Defendant has been selling 

Plaintiff’s vehicles on Amazon.com through the storefront “AuthenticDirect.” Id. at 8; see also id. 

at 8–9 (stating that Plaintiff repurchased from the “AuthenticDirect” online store front one of the 

wheels Defendant bought from Plaintiff as part of Defendant’s wholesale-dealer); see also id. at 9 

(stating that Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s demand letter).1 Defendant is allegedly 

using “AuthenticDirect” to disguise his online sales. Id. at 2. According to Plaintiff, these online 

sales breach the dealer agreement and violate the Lanham Act. Id. at 8–9. Plaintiff now seeks a 

temporary restraining order and for an order to show cause requiring Defendant to demonstrate 

why the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction continuing the relief granted in the 

temporary restraining order. See id. at 19–20. 

 “The same legal standard applies to a motion for a temporary restraining order and a 

motion for a preliminary injunction.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1076 

(N.D. Cal. 2016). “A plaintiff seeking either remedy must establish that he is likely to succeed on 

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. (internal 

citation and quotation omitted). On a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must demonstrate 

that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury. See, e.g., Baker DC v. NLRB, 102 F. 

Supp. 3d 194, 198 (D.D.C. 2015). 

 Here, Plaintiff has failed to show that a significant threat of irreparable harm exists. 

Plaintiff argues that they are harmed by: the loss of Future Motion’s exclusive trademark rights 

resulting in consumer confusion about the material qualities of Future Motion’s products, 

“immeasurable damage” to Future Motion’s standing as the only authorized online seller of its 

products, and irreparable harm to Future Motion’s hard-earned goodwill and reputation among 

consumers, when online purchasers discover that the products they purchased are not covered by 

1

 The Court notes that Plaintiff alleges Defendant Herbert controls Tactical Sky and 

AuthenticDirect. Accordingly, for purposes of this TRO, the Court treats these parties the same. 

Case 5:20-cv-01647-EJD Document 18 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 3:20-cv-01647-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

the Future Motion warranty, and were stored and shipped in uncontrolled conditions, which could 

cause the batteries to explode and cause injury. Id. at 15. The Court is unclear what 

“immeasurable damage” or “market-share harm” Plaintiff refers to. By Plaintiff’s own admission, 

Defendant lawfully purchased the wheels from Plaintiff. See TRO Mot. at 2. Hence, Plaintiff has 

not lost money or market share from Defendant’s online store—Defendant bought the wheel from 

Plaintiff, paid money to Plaintiff for the wheel, and then resold the wheel online, in violation of 

the Parties’ contract. Plaintiff has thus suffered contractual harms, which can be remedied by 

economic damages. Furthermore, Plaintiff controls the distribution of wheels. It can stop 

Defendant’s online sales by ceasing to provide Defendant with products. 

Additionally, Plaintiff provides this Court with no evidence that the lithium ion batteries 

are actually imploding. Speculation does not meet the burden to show that a “significant threat of 

irreparable injury” exists. See Baker DC, 102 F. Supp. 3d at 198. Finally, goodwill and 

reputational harm can be quantified and redressed through economic damages. Plaintiff has not 

shown evidence to the contrary. For these reasons, Plaintiff has not met its burden and the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 11, 2020 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:20-cv-01647-EJD Document 18 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 3