Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00238/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-00238-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S.

OPERATIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE VINEYARD HOUSE, LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 4:20-cv-00238-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 16 

On February 20, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff Constellation Brands 

U.S. Operations, Inc.’s (“Constellation”) motion for preliminary injunction, which was fully 

briefed by the parties. (See Dkt. Nos. 5, 18, 20.) For the extensive reasons stated on the record, 

and confirmed and stated herein, having carefully considered the briefing and arguments 

submitted in this matter, the Court GRANTS Constellation’s motion for a preliminary injunction.1 

In order to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the moving party must 

establish that: (i) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 

the absence of preliminary relief; (iii) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (iv) an 

injunction is in the public interest. See Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 1124 

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). The plaintiff must 

make a threshold showing of likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, but a 

stronger showing on one element may offset a weaker showing on another. Alliance for Wild 

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131–32, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). “It is so well settled as not to 

require citation of authority that the usual function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 

status quo ante litem pending a determination of the action on the merits.” Tanner Motor Livery, 

Limited v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1963). 

1

 Both Constellation and defendant The Vineyard House, LLC (“TVH”) seek to file under 

seal materials that contain confidential, private, trade secret, and sensitive business information, 

including financial information. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 16.) Having reviewed the materials, the 

administrative motions seeking to file such information under seal are GRANTED for the purposes 

of this motion. 

Case 4:20-cv-00238-YGR Document 40 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

a

Here, as discussed at the oral argument, the Court finds that Constellation has 

demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, that the balance of equities tilt sharply in favor 

of Constellation in granting the preliminary injunction, and that the issuance of the preliminary 

injunction is in the public interest. Based on the record, the Court finds that Constellation has 

made a showing, albeit weaker, of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. 

However, in light of Constellation’s stronger showing on the other factors, see Alliance for Wild 

Rockies, 632 F.2d at 1131-32, the factors weigh in favor of issuing the preliminary injunction. 

Accordingly, Constellation’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Thus, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, pending trial, TVH is preliminarily enjoined from the 

following acts: 

(1) Importing, selling, distributing, advertising or otherwise using the name “TO KALON” 

or any other reproduction, counterfeit, copy, colorable imitation, or confusingly similar 

variation of thereof, in conjunction with wines; and 

(2) Inducing, encouraging, instigating, aiding, abetting, or contributing to any of the 

aforesaid acts. 

And, in light of the parties’ agreement at the oral argument, the Court determines that no 

security bond is necessary as contemplated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). See Connecticut Gen. Life

Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court is 

afforded wide discretion in setting the amount of the bond . . . and the bond amount may be zero if 

there is no evidence the party will suffer damages from the injunction.”). 

This preliminary injunction shall continue and remain in effect through trial and the final 

disposition of this case and the related case, The Vineyard House, LLC v. Constellation Brands 

U.S. Operations, Inc., 4:19-cv-01424-YGR (N.D. Cal.). 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 4, 16, 45. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 21, 2020 

 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00238-YGR Document 40 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 2