Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04363/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

ROBERT GUICHARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MANDALAY PICTURES, LLC, d/b/a

MANDALAY ENTERTAINMENT, METROGOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC., et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 04-4363 JSW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL 

Now before the Court is the ex parte motion by Plaintiff Robert Guichard for a

preliminary injunction pending appeal of this Court’s March 22, 2005 order denying Plaintiff’s

motions for a preliminary injunction. The present motion functions as a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s earlier ruling, denying the preliminary injunction under both the

Lanham Act and Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. on the grounds that

Plaintiff had shown neither likelihood of success on the merits of his claims nor irreparable

harm. Plaintiff is correct in his contention that the standard for a motion for injunction pending

appeal is essentially identical to the standard governing the issuance of a preliminary injunction. 

Case 3:04-cv-04363-JSW Document 63 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 2
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

(See Motion at 2, citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Los Angeles Memorial

Coliseum Comm’n v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980).) The

criteria for a preliminary injunction pending appeal are: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the

merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the preliminary relief is not

granted; (3) the balance of hardships tips in favor of the plaintiff; and (4) the advancement of

the public interest. Id.

On March 22, 2005, the Court determined that Plaintiff was not able to demonstrate

likelihood of success on the merits of his claims or that he will be irreparably harmed, and

therefore denied his motion for a preliminary injunction. Similarly, nothing in the current

motion before the Court indicates that Plaintiff has met the burden for a preliminary injunction. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04363-JSW Document 63 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2