N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AM E R IC AN RENA INTER NATIONAL C ORP., a C a l ifornia

c orporation; e t a l ., Plaintiffs - Appe lle e s, v. SIS-JOYC E INTER

NATIONAL C O. LTD., a C a lifornia

c orporation a

nd ALIC E ANNIE LIN, a

n individual, De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 12-57169

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-06972-DM GJEM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M . Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 11, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED JUL 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : TASHIM A a nd B Y B EE, C irc u it Judge s, a nd B ENC IVENGO, Distric t Judge . *** Am e ric an R e na

Inte rnationa l C om

pa ny and Sis-Joy c e Inte rnationa l C o. e a c h produc e skin c are , he a l thc are , a nd a nti-a ging produc ts, unde r the re spe c tive brand nam e s of “ R e na ” and “ AR ë na .” B oth bra nds use bottle s of simila

r siz e , sha pe , a nd sty le , an d a

ppe ar to sha

re m uc h of the sa

m e c ustom e r ba se . R e na sought a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion in fe de ra l distric t c ourt a ga inst SisJoy c e , a sse rting a

num be r of c la im s re lating to tra de m ark infringe m e nt a nd unfa ir c om pe tition. The

distric t c ourt gra

nte d R e na ’ s m otion in pa

rt, finding tha

t the re wa s like ly

tra de m ark infringe m e nt, tra de dre ss infringe m e nt, a nd inte ntiona l inte rfe re nc e with e c onom ic a d v anta ge , a

nd gra nte d R e na a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. Although Sis-Joyc e ha s not sought a sta y of the pre lim i na

ry injunc tion, whic h re m a ins in e ffe c t , Sis-Joy c e ha s tim e l y a ppe a le d the pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. W e a ffirm the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of a pre lim i na

ry injunc tion for a

buse of disc re tion. Farris v . Se abrook , 677 F.3d 858, 864 (9th C i r. 2012). Our re vie w

“ doe s not e xte nd to the unde rly ing m e rits of thec a se ,” J ohnson v . C

outurie r , 572 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th C ir. 2009), a n d we a fford pa

rtic u la r de fe re nc e to the distric t

*** The Honora

ble C athy Ann B e nc ive n go, Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2c ourt’ s findings of fa c ts, whic h a re re vie we d only

for c le ar e rror, Hawk

i ns v . C ompare t-C

assani , 251 F.3d 1230, 1239 (9th C ir. 2001).

“ A pla intiff se e king a

pre lim ina

ry injunc tion m

u st e sta blish (1) tha

t he is like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits, (2) tha t he is like ly

to suffe r irre pa

ra ble ha rm in the a bse nc e of pre lim i na

ry re l ie f, (3) that the ba la

nc e of e quitie s tips in his fa vor, a nd (4) an d tha

t an injunc t ion is in the

public inte re st.” Toy o TireHoldings of Ams. Inc . v . C ont’l Tire N . Am., Inc . , 609 F.3d 975, 982 (9th C ir. 2010) (c iting W inte r v . N RDC , Inc . , 129 S. C t. 365, 374 (2005)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t R e na wa s like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits of its c la im s for tra de m a rk infringe m e nt, tra de dre ss infringe m e nt, a

nd inte ntiona l inte rfe re nc e with e c onom i c a dva nta ge . First, give n the l a c k of e vide nc e in the re c ord supporting Sis-Joy c e ’ s c la im s of priority , the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t R e na is “ the owne r of a va lid, prote c t a

ble [tra de ] m ark,” Groc e ry Outle t, Inc . v . Albe rtson’s Inc . , 497 F.3d 949, 951 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ). The distric t c o urt a lso a

ppropria te ly c onside re d the e i ght-fa c tor te st se t forth in A MF Inc . v . Sle e k c raft Boats , 599 F.2d 341, 348–49 (9th C ir. 1979), abrogation on othe r grounds re c ognize d

in Matte l, Inc . v . W alk ing Mountain Prods. , 353 F.3d 792, 800 (9th C i r. 2003), in c onc luding that Sis-Joy c e is using a

c onfusingly

sim i la r m a rk. Se c ond, thec ourt re a sona bly 3found tha

t R e na would like ly

“ p rove [] tra de dre ss infringe m e nt” by

“ de m onstra

t[ing] tha t (1) the tra de dre ss is nonfunc tiona l, (2) the tra de dre ss ha s a c quire d se c onda

ry m e aning, a

nd (3) the re is a

substa ntia l like lihood of c onfusion be twe e n the pla intiff’ s a

nd de fe nda

nt’ s produc ts.” A rt Attack s Ink ., LLC v . MGA Entm’t, Inc . , 581 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th C ir. 2009). Third, the distric t c ourt re a s ona bly found tha

t R e na wa s like l y to suc c e e d on them e rits of its inte ntiona l inte rfe re nc e with prospe c tive e c onom ic a dva nta g e c la im

unde r C a lifornia

la w be c a use it c ould show (1) the e x iste nc e of at le a st one spe c ific e c onom ic re lationship betwe e n pla intiffs a nd third pa

rtie s tha t m ay e c onom ic a lly

be ne fit pla i ntiffs; (2) knowle dge by the de fe nda

nts of this re lationship; (3) inte ntiona l a nd wrongful a c ts by

the de fe nda

nts de signe d to disrupt the re lationship; (4) “ a c tua l disruption of the

re lationship” ; a

nd (5) e c onom ic ha

rm proxim ate ly c a

use d by de fe nda nt. K ore a Supply

C o. v . Loc k he e d Martin C o rp. , 63 P.3d 937, 950 (C a l. 2003). Sis-Joy c e ’ s a s se rtion tha t “ [t] he re is no e vide n c e supporting inte rruption of re lationship”is c ontra dic te d by the re c ord, a

nd the re fore the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding fa c ts tha

t support the K

ore a Supply

e l e m e nts for a

n inte ntiona l inte rfe re n c e c la im . The distric t c ourt a l so did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t irre p ara ble ha rm will like ly

re sult in the

a bse nc e of pre lim ina

ry injunc tion re l ie f. R e na

ha s 4provide d “ [e ] vide nc e of thre ate ne d loss of . . . custom e rs or goodwill,” Stuhlbarg

Int’l Sale s C o., v . J o hn D. Brush &

C o. , 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th C i r. 2001), a nd pointe d to a

wide range of “ inta

ngible injurie s, suc h

a s da m a ge to ongoing re c ruitm e nt e fforts a

nd goodwill,” Re nt-A-C

e nte r, Inc . v . C

any on Te le v ision & Applianc eRe ntal, Inc . , 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th C ir. 1991), like ly to re sult— and a lre a dy re sulting—from Sis-Joy c e ’ s infringing prac tic e s . Eve n if R e na ’ s ba d busine ss pra c tic e s c ontribute d in som e pa rt to its de c line in busine ss, the distric t c ourt did not c le arly

e rr in finding tha

t Sis-Joy c e ’ s a c t ions, too, ha ve signific antly c ontribute d to R e na ’ s loss of busine ss. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding tha t the ba la nc e of ha rdships fa vors R e na . Tha

t the pre se nt injunc tion will al le ge dly drive Sis-Joy c e out of busine ss doe s not we igh in Sis-Joyc e ’ s favor whe re it a p pe ars tha

t Sis-Joy c e ’ s e ntire busine ss m ode l is pre m i se d on its infringing use of the AR ë na m ark. Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion in finding tha t the public inte re s t favors the injunc tion. An injunction tha t pre ve nts c onsum e r c onfusion in tra de m a rk c a se s, a s this injunction doe s, se rve s the public inte re st. Inte rne t Spe c ialtie s W ., Inc . v . Milon-DiGiorgio Ente rs., Inc . , 559 F.3d 985, 993 (9th C ir. 2009). 5Fina lly , we do not find this injunc tion to beunc o nstitutiona lly ove rbroa d, be c a use it doe s not pre v e nt Sis-Joy c e from se lling non-infringing produc ts or from e nga ging in spe e c h

tha t doe s not c onstitute

infringe m e nt or inte ntiona l inte rfe re nc e with e c onom ic a dva

nta ge . Sis-Joy c e c annot sow c onfusion in the m arke tpla c e by viola ting thetra d e m ark rights of others a nd the n e s c a

pe the c onse que nc e s by arguing tha

t a ny a c t ion c urta iling its infringing a c tions im pinge s on its C onstitutiona

l rights. AFFIRM ED.

6