Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01376/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01376-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

SUCCESSFACTORS,INC. a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOFTSCAPE, INC., a Delaware

corporation; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-1376 CW

TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

AND ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY A

PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION SHOULD

NOT ISSUE

Plaintiff SuccessFactors, Inc.'s motion for a temporary

restraining order and application for expedited discovery were

filed on March 11, 2008, with notice to Defendant Softscape. 

Defendant filed an opposition on March 12, 2008. Having considered

the parties' papers, the Court grants in part Plaintiff's motion

for a temporary restraining order, grants in part Plaintiff's

motion for expedited discovery and orders Defendant to respond to

the remainder of Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and to

show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

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, the moving party must

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 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

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 the moving party’s favor. See Baby Tam & Co. v.

City of Las Vegas, 154 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1998); Rodeo

Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.

1987).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing

that serious questions regarding the merits exist and the balance

of hardships tips sharply in its favor to justify granting the

relief it seeks. Therefore, the motion for a temporary restraining

order is GRANTED and Defendant and its agents are hereby ORDERED to

refrain from:

(1) Publishing, circulating, e-mailing, making available or

otherwise distributing any product or document using

Plaintiff's trademarks or Plaintiff's secret information.

(2) Accessing for improper reason any computer system or

computer owned, operated or licensed by Plaintiff and

subject to restrictions on access without Plaintiff's

express written authorization.

(3) Making any statements that purport to be made by anybody

other rather than Defendant or its agents.

This temporary restraining order is effective on Plaintiff's

posting a bond in the amount of $10,000. The temporary restraining

order shall remain in effect until the Court rules on Plaintiff's

motion for a preliminary injunction. 

General counsel for Defendant declares that Defendant "has

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 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

never and is not now using the Presentation in external sales

meetings or marketing efforts, and has no intention to release on

the internet, or otherwise publish externally, the Presentation." 

Mohr Decl. ¶ 5; see also Defendant's Opposition at 3. Therefore,

the Court need not grant Plaintiff's request that this order enjoin

Defendant from publishing, circulating, e-mailing, making available

or otherwise distributing the Presentation. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve its proposed

subpoenas on Verizon Internet Services Inc. and Comcast Cable

Communications Holdings, Inc. Defendant shall file a response to

the remainder of Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery by

March 17, 2008. Any reply shall be filed by March 21, 2008 and the

motion will be heard on March 27, 2007. 

Finally, it is ORDERED that Defendant show cause before this

Court on March 27, 2008 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as

counsel may be heard, why an order should not be issued pursuant to

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining Defendant

or its agents during the pendency of this action from publishing,

circulating, e-mailing, making available or otherwise distributing

any product or document using Plaintiff's trademarks or Plaintiff's

secret information, from accessing for improper reason any computer

system or computer owned, operated or licensed by Plaintiff and

subject to restrictions on access without Plaintiff's express

written authorization, and from making any statements that purport

to be made by anybody other than Defendant or its agents.

If Defendant wishes, it may respond to this order to show

cause by filing a written submission on or before March 17, 2008. 

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 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

If Defendant files a written submission, Plaintiffs may reply on or

before March 21, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/13/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 Page 4 of 4