Source: https://blog.pattishall.com/tag/preliminary-injunction/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:20:54+00:00

Document:
The storyline developed to market the “Transformers” line of toy robots that transform into vehicles and other objects is probably familiar to any child of the ’80s and certainly to anyone who contributed to the box-office success of the 2007 Transformers movie and its sequels. It’s a battle between Optimus Prime’s virtuous Autobots and Megatron’s evil Decepticons, an epic robot battle between good and evil.
A somewhat less epic battle is being waged in the Central District of California, where Hasbro, the owner of the Transformers brand, has sued Asus Computer International, a manufacturer of high-end electronics, for trademark infringement and dilution. See Hasbro, Inc. v. Asus Computer Int’l, Inc., No. 11-cv-10437 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012).
Hasbro owns a registration for TRANSFORMERS in class 28 for “toy action figures, toy vehicles, and toy robots convertible into other visual forms.” Taking advantage of renewed interest in the Transformers brand (owing to the success of the recent film franchise), Hasbro launched the Emmy-nominated “Transformers Prime” animated television series in November 2010 and applied to register its TRANSFORMERS PRIME mark in classes 28 and 41.
On January 4, 2011, Asus announced the launch of its Eee Pad Transformer tablet computer, which uses Google’s Android operating system and is capable of “transforming” from a tablet computer into a laptop when connected to a mobile docking station. The name did not go unnoticed by Hasbro, which sent Asus a cease-and-desist letter two weeks after the announcement. Asus’s counsel responded, asserting that Hasbro’s mark did not apply to netbook computers and that Asus’s use of the term was merely descriptive. No further communications between the parties were exchanged, and Asus began selling the Eee Pad Transformer tablet in April 2011. On October 19, 2011, Asus announced the second generation of its tablet: the Eee Pad Transformer Prime. According to Asus, the word “prime” was added to signify the premium nature of the product and “to emphasize the tablet was first in time, rank, authority, and significance.” It’s also the last name of the Autobots’ protagonist. Hasbro filed suit on December 16, 2011, and moved for a preliminary injunction shortly thereafter.
The court accepted Asus’s uncontroverted evidence that it would suffer considerable hardship from the recall of goods already in circulation—particularly in light of the very short window of opportunity for computer manufacturers to capitalize on the latest technology—and rejected Hasbro’s claims of hardship in light of the fact that Hasbro waited eleven months after sending a cease-and-desist letter and eight months after Asus launched its original Eee Pad Transformer tablet before filing suit. Although it may have been the announcement of Asus’s Eee Pad Transformer Prime tablet that ultimately pushed Hasbro into filing, Hasbro still waited two months before filing its complaint on the eve of Asus’s second-generation tablet’s launch.
Jeffrey A. Wakolbinger is an attorney with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, a leading intellectual property law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. Pattishall McAuliffe represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark, copyright, and unfair competition trials and appeals, and advises its clients on a broad range of domestic and international intellectual property matters, including brand protection, Internet, and e-commerce issues. Jeff’s practice focuses on trademark and copyright litigation, as well as domestic and international trademark, Internet, e‑commerce, and copyright law.
 A copy of the opinion is available here: http://www.pattishall.com/pdf/2012-03-23_11-cv-10437_Hasbro v. Asus.pdf.
In “one [of] a series of domestic disputes between” Paul Bogoni and Vicdania Gomez, Gomez registered the domain names paulbogoni.org and paulbogoni.com without his authorization. She offered to sell the domain names for $1 million each and posted content on one of them related to certain of her and her daughter’s artwork. Bogoni sued under the personal name protection provisions of the Anti-cybersquatting Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 8131, seeking a preliminary injunction. He prevailed when Gomez’s defense of use in connection with a copyrighted work failed to show her good faith registration. Bogoni v. Gomez, No. 11 civ 08093 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2012).
This decision illustrates a key distinction between a claim over the use of a personal name as a domain name under the ACPA versus the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: the UDRP does not protect personal names that are not trademarks as well, even the names of famous people who do not use their names in connection with a designation for their business. See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/ (response to question 1.6). Business executives who find themselves subject to attack or pseudo-extortion through domain names incorporating their personal names may be able to take advantage of this targeted ACPA claim, as well as claims under state laws protecting rights of privacy.
 The Court discussed at some length whether Bogoni satisfied the third prong of this test because of some prior decisions finding that personal name cybersquatting to recover a debt would avoid liability. See Carl v. BernardJCarl.com, 409 F. App’x 628, 630 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curium) (unpublished).
AFL Telecommunications LLC (“AFL”) sells FUJIKARA fusion splicers in the U.S. under an exclusive license from Fujikura Ltd., a Japanese manufacturer of fiber optic equipment. AFL also is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fujikara. SurplusEQ.com, Inc. and friends (“SurplusEQ”) import FUJIKURA fusion splicers intended for sale outside the U.S. and sell them over the Internet to U.S. consumers. In other words, SurplusEQ sells gray market FUJIKARA fusion splicers.
AFL sued SurplusEQ and moved for a preliminary injunction over these sales, claiming unfair competition, false advertising, and copyright infringement. SurplusEQ moved to dismiss. The Court denied AFL’s motion for preliminary injunction because AFL failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm under the standard announced in eBay v. MercExchange L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) and Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). It also denied SurplusEQ’s motion to dismiss, except for a common law unfair competition claim that AFL did not properly articulate. AFL Telecomm. LLC v. SurplusEQ.com, Inc., 11-01086 (D. Ariz. Sep. 14, 2011).
J.D. Salinger wrote The Catcher in the Rye, became a sensation, and then disappeared—except for the occasional copyright suit. In Salinger v. Colting, No. 09-2878-cv, slip op. (2d Cir. Apr. 30, 2010), the Second Circuit vacated and remanded for further consideration the district court’s decision to grant Salinger a preliminary injunction against the publication in the United States of Frederick Colting’s 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye.
The Second Circuit’s decision did not turn on any error in the lower court’s logic—Judge Calabresi, writing for a unanimous panel, upheld the lower court’s findings that Salinger likely would prevail on the merits of his copyright claim because (1) the works at issue were substantially similar and (2) Colting was not likely to prevail on a fair use defense—but instead on a change to the Second Circuit’s standard for granting injunctions, both preliminary and permanent, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
Davidoff markets COOL WATER, a prestige brand of cologne that Davidoff only permits luxury retailers to sell. When Davidoff declined to permit CVS to sell the product, CVS obtained COOL WATER from unauthorized channels with the UPC codes removed that it then sold through its stores. Davidoff brought suit for trademark infringement, arguing that CVS’s sales of COOL WATER products without UPCs (“decoded products”) hinders Davidoff from guarding against counterfeits and from protecting the reputation of its brand. CVS denied that the products were counterfeit, instead arguing that removing the UPCs and selling gray market goods was not illegal. The district court preliminarily enjoined CVS from selling any Davidoff trademarked products with the UPCs removed and the Second Circuit affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 8131
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.