Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00887-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I.SO ITALIA S.P.A. AND I.SO

ITALIA U.S.A., INC., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDOOR SUN SYSTEMS, INC. AND

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants. 

INDOOR SUN SYSTEMS, INC.,

Counter-Claimant,

v.

I.SO ITALIA S.P.A. AND I.SO

ITALIA U.S.A., INC., and DOES 1

through 100,

Counter-Defendants.

 CIV-S-06-887 DFL/DAD

ORDER

The court previously heard arguments on cross motions for

preliminary injunctions. The motions were brought on shortened

time because of the impending trade show that will be held this

weekend. At the time those motions were heard, both Iso Italia

(“Iso”) and TanAmerica agreed that they would not be marketing a

product using the Matrix trademark. In addition, counsel for Iso

Case 2:06-cv-00887-DFL-DAD Document 49 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 4
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

made the following representation at oral argument:

The Court: What I would really like, if you can agree,

if your client is going to undertake a change in

policy, where this trademark is going to become part of

an advertising campaign or it’s going to be placed on a

product, that you will notify the court and opposing

counsel so that we cannot have a fire drill, that we

can, at least with a few days notice, have a hearing,

whether it’s by telephone or not. Can we all agree to

that?

Ms. Arlana Cohen: Yeah.

Although later in the hearing, counsel for Iso stated that Iso

might wish to do some marketing with the Matrix name, in the

context of the hearing, the posture of the case, and the overall

representations of the parties, it was incumbent upon Iso to

notify the court and TanAmerica that it intended to concentrate

its marketing at the World Tanning Expo trade show on the term,

“Matrix.” It was unreasonable to do otherwise, and it was

misleading to the court to withhold this information at the

earlier hearing. All parties understood that the court was

attempting to avoid the precise situation that has now unfolded:

a last minute motion that would severely inconvenience the court,

counsel, and the parties. Because Iso has violated at least the

spirit, if not the letter, of its representations to the court,

the temporary restraining order will be issued. The temporary

restraining order is entered on two grounds. First, the court

finds that TanAmerica may suffer irreparable injury and that it

is unnecessary for Iso to feature the Matrix mark in its display

at the trade show, in such a way that the display could suggest

that Iso is marketing a Matrix product. Second, the court finds

Case 2:06-cv-00887-DFL-DAD Document 49 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 4
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

that a temporary restraining order is a proper sanction in

response to a lack of candor by Iso.

Accordingly:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that TanAmerica’s Motion for a

temporary restraining order IS GRANTED as follows:

1. Iso, its officers, directors, principals, agents,

servants, employees, successors and assigns, and all those acting

in concert or participation with them are restrained from:

(a) from using the Matrix mark in Iso’s trade show

exhibit at the World Tanning Expo in Nashville, Tennessee October

27-29, 2006, and;

(b) and are directed to immediately remove the words

“we are [matrix]” from its booth, brochure display racks, and

shirts from Iso’s trade show exhibit at the World Tanning Expo in

Nashville, Tennessee October 27-29, 2006.

(c) assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or

business entity in engaging in or performing any of the

activities referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above.

2. TanAmerica shall serve this Order on Iso by handdelivery to Iso’s counsel of record herein. However, this order

is effective immediately upon filing and electronic service by

the court.

3. Iso shall notify all of its employees and agents of

this Order and that they are restrained in accordance with the

terms of this Order.

4. In order to maintain this temporary restraining order

Case 2:06-cv-00887-DFL-DAD Document 49 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

in effect, TanAmerica shall post a corporate surety bond in the

amount of twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000) as security, which

the court deems proper for the payment of such costs and damages

as may be suffered by any party which is found to be wrongfully

restrained. Such bond shall be posted by 5 p.m., on October 30,

2006.

 IT IS SO ORDERED in Sacramento, California at 4:00 p.m. on

October 27, 2006.

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00887-DFL-DAD Document 49 Filed 10/27/06 Page 4 of 4