19-2720

Woodstock Ventures, LC v. Woodstock Roots LLC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A 

SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY 

FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN 

CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE 

EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION 

“SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON 

ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 26th day of February, two thousand twenty-one.

PRESENT:

SUSAN L. CARNEY,

WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 

Circuit Judges,

LEWIS J. LIMAN,

District Judge.*

_________________________________________

WOODSTOCK VENTURES, LC, THE WOODSTOCK CANNABIS COMPANY, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees,

v. No. 19-2720

WOODSTOCK ROOTS LLC, WOODSTOCK CANNABIS COMPANY, LLC, CHET-5

BROADCASTING, LP, GARY CHETKOF, AXCENTRIA PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, WOODSTOCK 

PRODUCTS COMPANY INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DBA WOODSTOCK AMERICAN PRODUCTS,

Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants.

_________________________________________

* Judge Lewis J. Liman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by 

designation.
 

2

FOR APPELLANTS: ANDREW R. SPERL, (Seth A. Goldberg, 

Joseph J. Pangaro, on the brief), Duane 

Morris LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Evan 

Michailidis, (on the brief), Duane Morris 

LLP, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEES: EDWARD T. COLBERT, (Erik C. Kane, on 

the brief), Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP, 

Washington, DC; Jonathan D. Reichman, 

Shawn P. Regan, Jennifer Bloom, (on the 

brief), Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP, New 

York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of New York (Gardephe, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order entered on July 29, 2019, is AFFIRMED.

Defendants-Appellants Woodstock Roots, LLC, et al. (collectively, “Roots”), appeal 

the denial of a preliminary injunction that they sought against Plaintiffs-Appellees 

Woodstock Ventures, LC, et al. (collectively, “Ventures”). In the underlying action, Ventures 

sued Roots for trademark infringement, claiming Roots’s products infringed on Ventures’s

use of the “Woodstock” mark in connection with the sale of recreational marijuana and 

related products. Roots counterclaimed for trademark infringement based on its federal 

registration of the “Woodstock” mark in connection with “smokers’ articles.” Roots then 

sought a preliminary injunction against Ventures based on its counterclaim for trademark 

infringement. The district court (Gardephe, J.) declined to enter a preliminary injunction, 

ruling that, even if Roots had priority in the “Woodstock” mark in connection with 

“smokers’ articles,” it did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits because it had 

not shown a likelihood of consumer confusion. See Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 

F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, 

procedural history, and arguments on appeal, and refer to them only as necessary to explain 

our decision to affirm.
 

3

We review the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. SG 

Cowen Sec. Corp. v. Messih, 224 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2000). “Such an abuse of discretion 

ordinarily consists of either applying an incorrect legal standard or relying on a clearly 

erroneous finding of fact.” Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 473 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting King v. 

Innovation Books, 976 F.2d 824, 828 (2d Cir. 1992)). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the 

movant must show: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious 

questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation” and the balance of 

hardships tips “decidedly in the plaintiff’s favor; (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury in the 

absence of an injunction; (3) that the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiff’s favor; and (4) 

that the public interest would not be disserved by the issuance of an injunction.” Benihana, 

Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC, 784 F.3d 887, 895 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and 

alteration omitted) (citing Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 79–80 (2d Cir. 2010)). The standard 

is demanding: “[I]njunctive relief [is] an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded 

upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Salinger, 607 F.3d at 79

(quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). Such relief should not be 

granted “unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. 

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 

Salinger, 607 F.3d at 79 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24). Roots bore a heavy burden in 

seeking a preliminary injunction. It has failed on appeal to identify any clear error in the 

district court’s factual findings underlying its analysis of the likelihood of success on the 

merits. We conclude that the district court acted within the permissible bounds of its 

discretion in denying the requested preliminary injunction.

We express no opinion on the merits or strength of the parties’ underlying claims. 

The District Court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court