Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00701/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00701-0/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

 That declaration, in relevant part, states: “I am informed that public records indicate

that this retail establishment, which is located at 259 20th Street in Oakland, California, has

been under the same ownership since late 2004, although its name subsequently changed

from Good Luck Supermarket to Silver View Supermarket. Based on this information, I

understand that all counterfeit cigarettes purchased at this location in 2005 were sold by

the same owner, regardless of whether the store was named Good Luck Supermarket or

Silver View Supermarket at the time of the buy.” (See Wilson Decl. at 3 n.1.) 

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 AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE

TO SUPPLEMENT 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”). In particular, plaintiff seeks to enjoin Silver View from

purchasing or selling counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes.

The evidence before the Court is that plaintiff’s agents purchased counterfeit

Marlboro cigarettes on two occasions in 2005 at Good Luck Supermarket, located at 259

10th Street, Oakland, California. (See Samuels Decl. at 2; Irons Decl. at 2.) There is no

admissible evidence before the Court of any connection between Goodluck Supermarket

and Silver View, only a declaration based on hearsay.1 The Court cannot issue a

temporary restraining order against Silver View based on inadmissible hearsay about its

Case 3:06-cv-00701-MMC Document 9 Filed 02/01/06 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

 Although the Court may issue a seizure order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d),

plaintiff has not sought such an order. Any seizure order issued pursuant to § 1116(d)

must be executed by a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer, and the goods

seized “shall be taken into the custody of the court.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(7), (d)(9).

2

ownership.

In addition, plaintiff seeks an order permitting it to inspect Silver View’s inventory and

to seize any counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes found therein. The proposed order submitted

by plaintiff provides: “If any such cigarettes are identified as counterfeit, Philip Morris USA

shall be allowed to retain possession of those cigarettes, pending trial in this matter.” (See

Proposed Order at 4-5.) Philip Morris has submitted no authority, however, permitting it to

seize and retain control of any counterfeit cigarettes found in Silver View’s inventory.2

Accordingly, the Court will afford plaintiff the opportunity to file, no later than

February 3, 2006, a supplemental memorandum and supplemental declaration(s)

demonstrating that it is entitled to the relief sought against Silver View. If plaintiff fails to

timely file such supplemental briefing, the Court will deny the pending application for a

temporary restraining order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00701-MMC Document 9 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2