Trademark Preliminary Injunction Granted

Posted on November 25, 2008 by R. David Donoghue

Miyano Machinery USA, Inc. v. MiyanoHitec Mach., Inc., No. 08 C 526, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 5, 2008) (Kendall, J.)

Judge Kendall granted a preliminary injunction against defendants’ (collectively “MiyanoHitec”) continued use of plaintiff Miyano Machinery’s (“MMU”) MIYANO trademarks. MMU proved a sufficient likelihood of success on its trademark infringement claims. Despite the fact that Miyano was the surname of the individual defendants, it was protectible. While personal names are not generally protectible, MMU’s Miyano marks had acquired secondary meaning, making them protectible. And individual defendants originally consented to MMU registering the marks.

MMU’s “Winged M” mark was not abandoned when MMU changed the font of the Miyano name in the mark. And MMU showed a likelihood of confusion. MMU’s and MiyanoHitec’s marks were very similar and were used on similar products – lathes – that were to be sold in similar channels. MMU also offered evidence of a few acts of actual confusion. And the evidence showed that MiyanoHitec likely intended to benefit from the likely consumer confusion.

The Court also found that MMU would be irreparably harmed without an injunction because trademark infringement is presumed to create irreparable harm. In contrast, the injunction would cause MiyanoHitec minimal or no harm. MiyanoHitec had not sold any product yet, had previously used a different name, and was aware of MMU’s trademark claim before choosing its marks.

Finally, the public interest was served by preventing trademark infringement and the resulting consumer confusion. The Court, therefore, granted MMU a preliminary injunction against MiyanoHitec.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Subpoena of Plaintiff's Prosecution/Trial Counsel Denied.

Posted on September 4, 2008 by R. David Donoghue

Miyano Machinery USA, Inc. v. MiyanoHitec Machinery, Inc., No. 08 C 526, 2008 WL 236610 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 6, 2008) (Nolan, Mag. J.).

Judge Nolan granted plaintiff’s motion to quash defendants’ subpoenas of plaintiff’s counsel – who represented: 1) plaintiffs and perhaps individual defendants in plaintiffs’ earlier trademark prosecution; and 2) plaintiffs in this case. The Court denied defendants’ motions to compel production of communications between plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel and to pierce the privilege.

Defendants argued that plaintiffs committed fraud on the PTO, and therefore inequitable conduct, when plaintiffs’ counsel allegedly knowingly submitted false declarations during prosecution of plaintiffs’ trademarks. Defendants based their claims on an allegedly privileged communication between plaintiff and its counsel (Exhibit L) that plaintiffs claimed was inadvertently produced.

 

The Court held that Exhibit L was inadvertently produced – it was just one document among 22,000 pages and plaintiffs requested its return immediately after discovering its production. Furthermore, Exhibit L was essentially a list of questions from counsel to plaintiffs, by which counsel was making sure he had sufficient information to file the declarations in question – evidence supporting plaintiffs’ defense of defendants’ inequitable conduct claims.

Finally, while the Seventh Circuit had not ruled on the correct test for whether to allow attorney depositions, the Court followed what it held was the prevailing test in the Northern District, as set forth in Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986):

 

  1. No other available means for obtaining the information;
     
  2. Information is relevant and not privileged; and
     
  3. Information is crucial to the case.

Id. Because plaintiffs identified four other individuals allegedly having the information – some of whom had not been deposed – defendants had not met their burden to depose plaintiffs’ counsel.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,