Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06488/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06488-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EBATES PERFORMANCE MARKETING, 

INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

INTEGRAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 12-cv-06488-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AS TO WHY A PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE (DKT. NO. 10) 

 Plaintiff Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc. (“Ebates”) filed a Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause as to Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue 

on December 27, 2012 (“TRO”). (Dkt. No. 10.) Defendant Integral Technologies, Inc. (“Integral”) 

filed its opposition on January 3, 2013 (“Opposition”). (Dkt. No. 19.) 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 

finds that this motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Having carefully 

considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for the reasons set forth 

below, the Court hereby DENIES Ebates’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and DECLINES

to issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue. 

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that 

govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,

434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977); Stuhlbarg lnt’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 

F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic 

remedy,” that is never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–690 (2008) 

Case 3:12-cv-06488-JST Document 23 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

(internal citations omitted). Whether seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary 

injunction, a plaintiff must establish four factors: (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) 

that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of 

equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

A plaintiff seeking an injunction must demonstrate that irreparable harm is likely, not just 

possible. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Courts does not presume irreparable harm, even in intellectual 

property cases. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 392–93 (2006) (rejecting 

invitation to replace traditional equitable considerations with a rule that an injunction automatically 

follows a determination that a copyright has been infringed)1; North American Medical Corp. v. 

Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1226 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Even though we hold that 

[plaintiffs] have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their trademark 

infringement and false advertising claims, we must still evaluate whether [plaintiffs] have 

demonstrated, with respect to each claim, that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 

injunction.”). 

Ebates contends that irreparable harm will result if Integral is not restrained from using the 

EBATES trademark and logo and the MAX CASH character and trademark (collectively, “Ebates’ 

Marks”) on Integral’s website, www.bigcrumbs.com. Ebates argues that permitting such use will 

result in losing control over its marks, which puts its reputation at risk. (TRO at 22–23; see id. at 1 

(“Every hour that [Integral] is allowed to use the Ebates[’] Marks . . . , Ebates’ customer loyalty 

and trust, goodwill, and market share are at risk.”).) Ebates further argues that (i) consumers will 

infer an affiliation between Ebates and Integral because the Ebates’ Marks appear on a website 

offering competing services, and (ii) if Integral “offers an inferior experience, a customer may 

associate that low quality with the Ebates[’] Marks and, as a result, with Ebates. The resulting 

 

1

 Ebates notes that there is a dispute in the Ninth Circuit over the application of eBay and Winter to 

trademark cases following Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 877 

(9th Cir. 2009). (TRO at 22.) The Court notes that the Ninth Circuit stated in Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. 

Precision Lift, Inc., that “[t]he panel’s summary treatment [in Marlyn] of the presumption without 

consideration of the effect of eBay and Winter does not bind this panel or constitute an affirmation of the 

presumption’s continued vitality.” 654 F.3d 989, 997 (9th Cir. 2011) (further noting that “[s]tatements made 

in passing, without analysis, are not binding precedent”). 

Case 3:12-cv-06488-JST Document 23 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

harm is irreparable.” (TRO at 24.) 

Noting that irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a 

preliminary injunction, Integral responds that Ebates’ alleged harms of “erosion of customer trust” 

and “reputation” and “loss of customer relationships” are not irreparable. (Opposition at 23.) 

Integral argues that lost customers and business goodwill “at least in theory may be compensated 

by damages” and therefore weighs against a claim of irreparable harm. (Id. (citing OG Int’l, Ltd. v. 

Ubisoft Entm’t, No. C 11-04980 CRB, 2011 WL 5079552, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2012)); see 

TMX Funding, Inc. v. Impero Technologies, Inc., No. C 10-00202 JF, 2010 WL 1028254, at *8 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2010). In addition, Integral argues that Ebates only assumes that consumers 

will infer “affiliation” between the parties based on Integral’s use of Ebates’ Marks. (Opposition at 

24.) 

The Court agrees with Integral that Ebates has not established that its alleged harms are 

irreparable. The “possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available 

at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable 

harm.” Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (internal citation and quotations omitted) 

(further stating that “[m]ere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy 

necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough”). As to Ebates’ claims of loss of 

customers and market share, such harms are measurable and are best characterized as economic 

harms. As to the of loss of reputation and “erosion of customer trust,” the Court is not persuaded 

that any loss of trust from customers, which may result from any consumers affiliating the parties 

together based on the bigcrumbs website, “cannot be regained.” (See TRO at 23.) 

For these reasons, Ebates has not adequately shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable 

harm from use of the Ebates’ Marks during the pendency of this litigation. Because Ebates has not 

demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm, the Court need not reach the other factors. Ebates’ 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is hereby DENIED. Based on this ruling, the Court further 

DECLINES to issue an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue. 

However, in light of the nature of the allegations, the Court advances the initial Case 

Management Conference to February 25, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall comply with the 

Case 3:12-cv-06488-JST Document 23 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 4
4 

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases and Civil Local Rules regarding a case management 

conference statement. 

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 10. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 4, 2013 _________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-06488-JST Document 23 Filed 01/04/13 Page 4 of 4