Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00887-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I.SO ITALIA S.P.A. AND I.SO

ITALIA U.S.A., INC., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDOOR SUN SYSTEMS, INC. AND

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants. 

INDOOR SUN SYSTEMS, INC.,

Counter-Claimant,

v.

I.SO ITALIA S.P.A. AND I.SO

ITALIA U.S.A., INC., and DOES 1

through 100,

Counter-Defendants.

 CIV-S-06-887 DFL/DAD

ORDER

The parties filed cross-motions for a preliminary

injunction. As discussed at the October 5, 2006 hearing, the

court finds that in view of the current intention of both parties

not to market a new “Matrix” tanning bed, neither party

sufficiently demonstrates a risk of irreparable injury in the

time it will take to bring this case to resolution. Moreover, at

Case 2:06-cv-00887-DFL-DAD Document 42 Filed 10/06/06 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

2

this early stage, it is not clear which party has the better

likelihood of success on the merits of the trademark claim. 

Factual uncertainty remains for matters that could prove

relevant, such as the interpretation of the contract terms in

light of the parties’ conduct, statements, and intentions

concerning the “Matrix” name, the actual quality control

undertaken by the parties, the procedures by which TanAmerica

requested and made changes to the Matrix, the difficulty of

obtaining FDA certification for the Matrix, and the effort and

skill required to assemble the Matrix from its component parts. 

These matters require further discovery. Moreover, because the

motions were scheduled for quick hearing, the legal issues have

not been thoroughly briefed. For these reasons, the court DENIES

the parties’ cross-motions for a preliminary injunction.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/6/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00887-DFL-DAD Document 42 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 2