Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Plaintiff Daniel Mitchell’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement and related claims action. The Court found that Mitchell failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for his federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, tortious interference, conversion, and civil conspiracy claims due to insufficient evidence of actual trademark use and legal deficiencies in the remaining causes of action. The Court also denied Mitchell’s motion to strike the Defendants’ response and ordered the Defendants to file their pending motion to dismiss as a separate docket entry.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his federal trademark infringement claim.
- Whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his unfair competition claim.
- Whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his tortious interference with economic advantage claim.
- Whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his conversion claim.
- Whether plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his civil conspiracy claim.
- Whether plaintiff is entitled to a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Holdings
- Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits of his trademark infringement claim, so the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction is denied.
- Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits of his unfair competition claim, so the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction is denied.
- Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits of his tortious interference claim, so the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction is denied.
- Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on his conversion claim, so the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction is denied.
- Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on his civil conspiracy claim, so the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction is denied.
- Because plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of any claim, the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice.
Key quotations
“To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, a party must prove: (1) that it has a protectible ownership interest in the mark; and (2) that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.” (at 3)
“To establish a claim for civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must show: (1) the commission of an underlying tort; and (2) an agreement between the defendants to commit that tort.” (at 6)
Factual background
Plaintiff Daniel Mitchell, owner of two registered trademarks for the word “Kolay” used on carpet tiles and hardwood flooring, alleges that former employees and a new company, Reddington Structural Solutions, used the Kolay mark on flooring products and misappropriated a confidential customer list. Defendants also include Chinese manufacturers and a competitor that allegedly sold Kolay‑branded products without permission.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a motion for TRO and preliminary injunction; defendants filed a response; plaintiff filed a reply and a motion to strike the response; the court denied the motion to strike and denied the TRO and preliminary injunction.