Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02173/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02173-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 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

GROCERY OUTLET INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERTSON’S, INC., AMERICAN STORES

COMPANY, LLC, and LUCKY STORES,

INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02173 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 4, 2006 AT 9:30 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion for temporary restraining order.

Case 3:06-cv-02173-JSW Document 17 Filed 04/03/06 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

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is the status of Plaintiff Grocery Outlet’s intent to use application filed

with the Patent and Trademark Office on January 23, 2006? Is there any reason

Plaintiff opened the store in Rocklin prior to adjudication of its entitlement to

use the LUCKY mark either by this Court or by the PTO?

2. Whose burden is it in this procedural posture to come forward with evidence

regarding the abandonment defense? If Plaintiff can demonstrate by clear and

convincing evidence that Albertson’s has not used the disputed mark in the past

three years, in the context of a temporary restraining order, does the burden shift

to Albertson’s to rebut the prima facie evidence of abandonment by nonuse? 

What evidence is there of use or nonuse? What evidence is there of intent to

resume or not to resume its use?

3. What specific discovery and schedule for discovery would both parties request

should the Court grant the motion? What is the parties’ preferred briefing and

hearing schedule for Defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction in light of

the Court’s intent to grant expedited reciprocal discovery?

4. What would be the appropriate bond amount should the Court grant the

temporary restraining order?

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02173-JSW Document 17 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2