CampaignZERO, Inc. v. StayWoke, Inc., Slip Op., No. 20 C 6765 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2020) (Valderrama, J.).
Judge Valderrama granted in part plaintiff CampaignZERO’s motion for expedited discovery related to its motion for a preliminary injunction in this trademark dispute involving CampaignZERO’s CAMPAIGNZERO mark.
Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
- As an initial matter, filing a preliminary injunction motion alone does not warrant expedited discovery.
- While CampaignZERO’s number of discovery request was small — a dozen document requests and ten interrogatories — the requested information was broad.
- While it was evidence of confusion, it was not clear how donations sent to CampaignZERO that were intended for defendant StayWoke harmed CampaignZERO.
- Because CampaignZERO did not have access to StayWoke’s records showing any donations intended for CampaignZERO that went to StayWoke, the Court allowed discovery on this narrow topic. That discovery was found in four interrogatories and four document requests. The Court allowed each of those discovery requests.
- Because CampaignZERO did not object, the Court also allowed StayWoke discovery into the inverse of the narrow set of issues allowed for CampaignZERO.