Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00998/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00998-0/pdf.json

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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

VIP Products, LLC, an Arizona limited

liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Kong Company, LLC, a Colorado

limited liability company; Margherita J.

Arvanites, an individual,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0998-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for an Order

Permitting Plaintiff to File Portions of its Amended Complaint and Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order Under Seal. (docket # 8)

Plaintiff commenced this action on May 7, 2010. (docket # 1) Defendants

have not yet answered or otherwise appeared, thus Plaintiff does not need leave of the Court

to file an amended complaint. Fed. R.Civ.P. 15. Rather, Plaintiff seeks an order to file an

Amended Complaint and related Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under seal

pursuant to LRCiv. 5.6. 

Plaintiff and Defendant The Kong Company, LLC (“Kong”) are competitors

in the business of designing and distributing dog toys. Defendant Margherita J. Arvanites

was previously a party to a Product License Agreement with Plaintiff and is now, Plaintiff

Case 2:10-cv-00998-DGC Document 9 Filed 05/17/10 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 -

contends, a party to a license agreement with Kong. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains claims

that fall into two general categories: (1) Lanham Act claims for false advertising, trademark

and trade dress infringement; and (2) breach of contract claims against Defendant Arvanites.

(docket # 1) 

Plaintiff and Arvanites allegedly entered into a Product License Agreement,

effective April 16, 2004. On September 23, 2008, Plaintiff and Arvanites allegedly entered

into a written agreement terminating their business relationship, the “Confidential

Termination Agreement.” Plaintiff states that the terms of the Confidential Termination

Agreement provide that the agreement shall be held in “strictest confidence” by the parties.

(docket # 8 at 2) Plaintiff further states that a central issue in this case is Plaintiff’s allegation

that Defendant Arvanites, in the course of her current business relationship with Kong, has

violated certain terms of the Confidential Termination Agreement. 

Because Plaintiff’s claims are based on information that is confidential under

the Confidential Termination Agreement, Plaintiff’s original Complaint includes only “bare

bones” allegations that Defendant Arvanites violated terms of the Confidential Termination

Agreement. Plaintiff has prepared an Amended Complaint which includes the details of the

contract terms, the nature of Plaintiff’s contentions regarding Arvanites’ alleged breaches,

and Plaintiff’s rights under the terms of the parties’ Confidential Termination Agreement.

Plaintiff seeks leave of the Court to file its Amended Complaint under seal to protect the

confidentiality of the parties’ Confidential Termination Agreement. Plaintiff also seeks

leave to file a related Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under seal. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that the court may enter

protective orders which, in the court’s judgment, in view of all of the surrounding

circumstances, “justice requires” upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c).

Courts have “considerable discretion in deciding whether the circumstances warrant entry

of a protective order and, if so, what provisions should be included.” In re Pizza Time

Theatre Securities Litigation, 113 F.R.D. 94, 97 (N.D. Cal. 1986). In view of the

confidential nature of Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Arvanites, the Court will

Case 2:10-cv-00998-DGC Document 9 Filed 05/17/10 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 -

grant Plaintiff’s motion to file its Amended Complaint and Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order under seal. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for an Order Permitting

Plaintiff to File Portions of its Amended Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order Under Seal, including its request for expedited consideration, docket # 8, are

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff VIP Products, LLC, may file

under seal: (1) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint; and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall not use emphasis (such

as bold text) in the caption of pleadings, motions or other court filings as contrary to the

District’s Local Rules. LRCiv 7.1(a), n. 2.

Upon the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

except upon the written consent of all parties to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 636(c)(1), this Magistrate Judge will direct the Clerk of the Court to randomly

reassign this case to a United States District Judge as a magistrate judge is without

jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

DATED this 17th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00998-DGC Document 9 Filed 05/17/10 Page 3 of 3