Egg Works, Inc. v. Egg World LLC

Full title: EGG WORKS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. EGG WORLD LLC, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Jun 30, 2010

2:10-cv-1013-LDG-RJJ (D. Nev. Jun. 30, 2010)

Opinion

2:10-cv-1013-LDG-RJJ.

June 30, 2010

ORDER

LLOYD GEORGE, Senior District Judge

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (#6). The core element of a trademark infringement is whether customers are likely to be confused about the source or sponsorship of the products. Reno Air Racing Ass'n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2006). The court finds that, while plaintiffs have addressed the factors identified inAMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348 49 (9th Cir. 1979), the record does not support the issuance of an emergency temporary restraining order. In particular, the evidence of actual confusion, in the form of statements by employees attesting to individuals mistakenly contacting them regarding employment opportunities at defendants' soon-to-be opened location, must be further developed in the preliminary injunction stage as support for consumer confusion, as does the evidence of other individuals assuming that Egg World was the same entity as Egg Works. Given that the threshold inquiry of the threat of irreparable harm cannot be resolved at this early stage, the court finds that balancing the hardships favors denial of the motion for an emergency temporary restraining order. However, the court will prioritize its consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly,

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order (#6) is DENIED.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that plaintiffs shall have to and including July 7, 2010, within which to serve upon the defendants all documents that are presently on file in this action.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that defendants shall have to and including July 14, 2010, within which to file any briefs, affidavits or other evidence in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that plaintiffs shall have to and including July 16, 2010, within which to file a reply brief, affidavits or other evidence in support of the motion for preliminary injunction.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the parties shall appear on the21^st day of July, 2010, at 10:00 AM, before this court for a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction.