Opinion ID: 1239364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Plaintiffs' request for an injunction

Text: Plaintiffs have requested this court to issue an injunction restraining defendants from misappropriating plaintiffs' recordings to defendants' use and profit. Plaintiffs refer to sec. 268.02 (1), Stats. 1971, [6] for the authority to issue an injunction pending trial. In Fromm & Sichel, Inc. v. Ray's Brookfield, Inc. (1966), 33 Wis. 2d 98, 146 N. W. 2d 447, the trial court dismissed the complaint, holding there was no cause of action. On appeal, this court, after reversing, said it would grant an injunction in similar cases when the situation is appropriate. We said: Under usual circumstances, where the plaintiff has asked for an injunction and the trial court has determined that his complaint states no cause of action, we would, upon reversing, if the facts made such action appropriate, direct the entry of an injunction, or if further fact-finding were necessary, we would refer the matter to the trial court to determine whether present conditions of fact permit or require the court to issue the requested injunction. (Pp. 102, 103) The plaintiffs argue that an injunction is appropriate and necessary in this case. We have held that a temporary injunction is appropriate to prevent an irreparable harm to a business ( Lakeside Oil Co. v. Slutsky (1959), 8 Wis. 2d 157, 98 N. W. 2d 415), and that the temporary injunction is appropriate to prohibit unfair competition ( Culligan, Inc. v. Rheaume (1955), 269 Wis. 242, 68 N. W. 2d 810). As noted above, appellate courts in Illinois, Missouri, and South Carolina reversed lower court rulings and ordered the granting of injunctions in record piracy cases. [7] The appellate courts of California and North Carolina affirmed the lower courts' issuance of injunctions. We conclude, however, that the matter of a temporary injunction in the instant case should be presented to the trial court. A substantial record on the injunction has already been made, and it may well be that no further hearing is required. The trial judge, in light of this opinion, is directed to reconsider the question of granting a temporary injunction. We need not comment upon the order of the trial judge enjoining the plaintiffs from commencing similar suits elsewhere against these defendants. The order was moot upon the perfection of the appeal in this court. Its renewal would be inappropriate and unlikely. By the Court. Order sustaining demurrer reversed, and cause remanded with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.