Intellectual Property – trademarks — TROs

Listen to this article

United States District Court

Civil

Intellectual Property

Trademarks; TROs

A temporary restraining order may extend beyond 28 days where the defendant has indicated it will not participate.

“Wright and Miller note that the language of the first federal statute authorizing TROs suggested that the purpose of a TRO was to enjoin further activity by defendant until a hearing could be held on a preliminary injunction and that its duration was to be determined in light of that objective. . . . [I]f the moving party has exercised good faith in seeking the preliminary injunction hearing but has been unsuccessful . . . and the danger of irreparable injury continues to exist, there is every reason for extending the temporary restraining order beyond 20 days[1] and the court should have discretion to do so. 11A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2953 (2d ed. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Trefelner ex rel. Trefelner v. Burrell School Dist., 655 F. Supp. 2d 581, 598–99 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (granting three-month extension to permit discovery prior to preliminary injunction hearing); Almetals, Inc. v. Wickeder Westfalenstahl, GMBH, No. 08-10109, 2008 WL 624067, at *2–3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2008) (granting plaintiff’s request to extend TRO until plaintiff could effect service under Hague Convention); Women’s Med. Prof’l Corp. v. Taft, 199 F.R.D. 597, 598 (S.D. Ohio 2000) (granting two-week extension to enable court to prepare preliminary injunction decision); Assocs. Fin. Servc. Co., Inc. v. Mercantile Mortgage Co., 727 F. Supp. 371, 375 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (granting several month extension because 20 days was ‘a woefully inadequate time in which to prepare for, hear and decide a motion for preliminary injunction’); U.S. v. City of Asbury Park, 340 F. Supp. 555, 557 n.3 (D.N.J. 1972) (granting two-week extension because of complex evidentiary issues related to the preliminary injunction).”

“The reason for imposing strict time limits on TROs in cases where the defendant has not been given notice of the proceeding is obviously a concern for fairness to the defendant. However, in the present case, this rationale carries less weight because both plaintiff and this court advised defendant’s New York counsel of the proceeding, and he indicated that defendant did not wish to participate.”

11-CV742 H-D, Michigan, LLC, v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops, S.A.

E.D.Wis., Adelman, J.