Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00883/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00883-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Best Western International, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jai Khodal, Inc.; Bakul A. Lewapatidar;

Deven S. Patel, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-883-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for “temporary restraining order with

notice.” Doc. #7. Although Plaintiff does not call its motion a motion for preliminary

injunction, because Plaintiff appears to be seeking removal of the Best Western marks for

at a minimum the duration of this litigation, the Court will treat the motion as a request for

a preliminary injunction.

The Court will require Defendants to respond to the motion. If Defendants fail to

respond to the motion, the Court will deem that failure to respond to be consent to the motion

being granted (see Local Rule Civ. 7.2(i)) and the Court will grant the motion without

holding a hearing. If Defendants respond, the Court will set an evidentiary hearing on the

Case 2:10-cv-00883-JAT Document 13 Filed 05/05/10 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

1

 If Defendants respond, they should note that the standard for seeking a preliminary

injunction relied on by Plaintiff has been impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court, Winter

v. Natural Resources Defense Council, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008), and expressly

overruled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, American Trucking Associations, Inc. v.

City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Defendants should use the correct

standard in their response.

- 2 -

motion.1 

Finally, Plaintiff suggests that this Court grant the motion without requiring a bond

because bond was waived in the contract between the parties. Plaintiff cites nothing to

support its argument that the bond requirement is waivable. Plaintiff will be required to

supplement its briefing on this issue; and in the alternative, propose a bond amount.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall respond to the motion for temporary

restraining order (which the Court has construed as a motion for preliminary injunction) by

May 17, 2010 or the Court will deem the failure to respond to be consent to the motion being

granted. (The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this order to Defendants at the address

listed on the certificate of mailing of the motion for temporary restraining order, Doc. #7 at

page 18.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief regarding

the bond issue by May 17, 2010.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00883-JAT Document 13 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2