![]() thisĬourt should withdraw its order of preliminary injunction altogether." Id. Removed, there is no longer sufficient grounds for finding irreparable harm, and therefore. Liberty also claims that "when flawed premise is REC SPECS mark to the 'SPORT SPECS' and 'F8' models posed a risk to Halo's reputation" be Consequently, Liberty requests that the Court's determination "that adding the Its quality standards, creates a significant risk of irreparable harm to the reputation of theĬompany.'" Id. "'labeling a product with the REC SPECS mark that was its competitor days before, andĭeveloped for sale at Wal-Mart, without permitting Halo the opportunity to ensure that they meet Liberty also contends that this mistake of fact led to the Court's finding that "that the Court revise its opinion to reflect that Halo has failed to carry its burden on preliminary Due to Liberty's clarification, they request Models sold under the REC SPECS brand." Id. SPECS' designs have simultaneously been sold under the REC SPECS mark from the very start,Īnd the 'F8' models have always been considered a closely related, but superior, product to the ![]() According to Liberty, "it is beyond dispute that the 'SPORT SPECS'Īnd 'F8' designs were always fit to be labeled as REC SPECS products," because "the 'SPORT On the merits of Halo's trademark infringement claims. ![]() Second, Liberty claims that "his Court's determination regarding likelihood of success Preliminary injunction to reflect its right to "cease ordering, purchasing, marketing or selling REC ![]() Consequently, Liberty requests that this Court modify the Marketing and promotion of REC SPECS branded goods in favor of selling only non-REC This Court's preliminary injunction order should be modified to reflect Liberty's right to cease its 38-1.įirst, Liberty argues that this Court's preliminary injunction operates to "prevent Libertyįrom terminating the 1993 trademark license agreement and selling sports protective eyewear thatĭoes not carry the REC SPECS mark." Dkt. Of these mistakes the Court's June 24 Order is in error. Liberty argues that this Court made a number of mistakes of law and fact, and that in light The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the background of this case, as detailed in Support of its motion for reconsideration. OnĪugust 18, 2014, Liberty submitted a letter motion which the Court accepted as a reply brief in On July 23, 2014, thisĬourt denied Liberty's motion for modification of the preliminary injunction to require securityĬurrently before the Court is Liberty's motion for reconsideration of the preliminary It do so in accordance with the parites' agreements, and the custom and practice implementing REC SPECS eyewear, or sports protective eyewear that competes with REC SPECS eyewear, that That competes with REC SPECS eyewear, or (2) if Liberty does order, purchase, market or sell Ordering, purchasing, marketing or selling REC SPECS eyewear, or sports protective eyewear In a MemorandumDecision and Order dated J(the "June 24 Order"), this Court granted Halo's motionįor a preliminary injunction, enjoining Liberty during the pendency of this action from "(1) Of contract by Defendant Liberty Sports, Inc. "Halo") commenced this action on March 13, 2014, alleging trademark infringement and breach Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |