Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00396/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00396-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STUDIO RED INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCKWELL ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND

DESIGN, P.C.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-396 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR A

TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff, an industrial design firm operating under the name

"Studio Red" since 1983, has filed an ex parte application for a

temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin Defendant Rockwell

Architecture from offering design services under its subsidiary or

division, also named "Studio Red." Defendant was served with this

ex parte application. Defendant's counsel filed a declaration in

opposition. Having considered Plaintiff's papers, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order. 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant should be enjoined from using

the Studio Red name for its design services because Plaintiff has a

Case 4:07-cv-00396-CW Document 16 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

valid, protectable ownership interest in the name, and Defendant's

use of the name is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace and

thus infringe that right. 

A temporary restraining order may be issued only if 

"immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to

the applicant" if the order does not issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

To obtain a temporary retraining order, Plaintiff must establish

either: (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the

possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions

regarding the merits exist and the balance of hardships tips

sharply in its favor. See Baby Tam & Co. v. City of Las Vegas, 154

F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1998); Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West

Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 1987).

As Plaintiff points out, irreparable injury in a trademark

case is presumed upon a showing of a likelihood of confusion. 

Metro Publ'g, Ltd. v. San Jose Mercury News, 987 F.2d 637, 640 (9th

Cir. 1993). Plaintiff states that it has received correspondence

and telephone calls at its office intended for Defendant,

indicating actual confusion. Further, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant was aware of Plaintiff when it began using the name, and

therefore, that Defendant is willfully infringing Plaintiff's trade

name. Although Defendant began using the Studio Red name in 2003,

Plaintiff alleges that it only recently began conducting business

in Northern California. 

Plaintiff initially filed its complaint in state court on

November 15, 2006. Defendant informed Plaintiff that it intended

to remove the case to federal court and suggested that the parties

Case 4:07-cv-00396-CW Document 16 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

meet and confer to attempt to resolve the issue. Defendant

informed Plaintiff that it did not believe that the two businesses

were competing in the same field. The parties agreed to meet and

confer. 

Plaintiff dismissed its state case and refiled the complaint

in this Court in January, 2007. In February, 2007, Plaintiff

stipulated to an extension of time for Defendant to answer the

complaint so that the parties could meet and confer. Defendant

attempted to schedule an appointment with Plaintiff but received no

response before its answer was due on March 14, 2007. Defendant

answered the complaint and states that it continued to try to

schedule a meeting with Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff filed this

application for a temporary restraining order on April 9, 2007.

Plaintiff argues that, despite this passage of time,

injunctive relief should be granted, citing GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt

Disney Co., 202 F.3d 1199, 1209 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the

court in GoTo upheld a noticed and properly opposed preliminary

injunction, not an ex parte temporary restraining order. Further,

Plaintiff's argument that it is seeking a temporary restraining

order "only a few months later" than it first filed its complaint

is not well taken. Plaintiff makes no representation regarding its

initial discovery of Defendant's use of the Studio Red name. The

proper inquiry in determining whether the doctrine of laches bars

injunctive relief in a trademark case is whether "the trademark

holder knowingly allowed the infringing mark to be used without

objection for a lengthy period of time." Id. (quoting Brookfield

Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d

Case 4:07-cv-00396-CW Document 16 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

1036, 1061 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

began using the Studio Red name in 2003, not several months ago. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's

application for a temporary restraining order. However, the Court

will deem its motion to be a motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Defendant's opposition shall be filed by April 26, 2007. 

Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed by May 3, 2007. The

matter will be heard on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 2:00 P.M. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/11/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00396-CW Document 16 Filed 04/11/07 Page 4 of 4