Opinion ID: 719393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiff's Delay.

Text: 10 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff slept on its rights between February 26, 1990 and December 8, 1992 when Defendant was using the name Biocell in the United States continuously without objection by Plaintiff. Plaintiff answers that it acted within three weeks of discovering Defendant's infringing activity in late 1992. Upon examining the letters concerning the use of the Biocell name exchanged between Plaintiff, Defendant, and their respective counsel between June, 1989, and February, 1990, it becomes clear that Plaintiff was justified in believing that seeking a preliminary injunction was unnecessary at that time because in these letters Defendant's counsel assured Plaintiff more than once that his client would cease using the name Biocell. Defendant simultaneously asked Plaintiff to pay Defendant's costs and to agree not to use the name Biocell in the United Kingdom, but it did not condition its promise to cease using Biocell in the United States on Plaintiff's compliance with that request. 11 Nevertheless, after the exchange of letters, Defendant increased its business presence in the United States. Plaintiff filed this action immediately upon learning that Defendant had begun selling its products at trade shows using the Biocell name, whereas previously its products had been sold at booths registered under its distributor's name, Ted Pella, Inc.. Under these circumstances, there was no significant delay in Plaintiff's response once it learned of the infringement. 12