Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cathedral Art Metal Co. Inc. v. Divinity Boutique, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

January 12, 2018

CATHEDRAL ART METAL CO., Plaintiff,
v.
DIVINITY BOUTIQUE, LLC and NICOLE BRAYDEN GIFTS, LLC, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Cathedral Art Metal Co.'s (“Plaintiff” or “Cathedral”) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [2] (the “Motion”).

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Facts

         Plaintiff and Defendants Divinity Boutique, LLC and Nicole Brayden Gifts, LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “Divinity Boutique”) compete in the homewares and giftware marketplace. Both parties are presently exhibiting at the International Gift Home Furnishing Market currently being held in Atlanta (the 2018 Atlanta Gift Show), which runs until January 16, 2018 at the AmericasMart in downtown Atlanta. Plaintiff alleges it “is the owner and seller of the ‘Amazing Woman' line of homeware products and gift items, which are characterized by the trademark AMAZING WOMAN and a distinctive trade dress that includes a stylized script writing presentation of the mark AMAZING WOMAN on a soft and soothing color palette, and typically further includes a textual presentation of traditional feminine virtues and attributes.” ([2-1] at 3).

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have “misappropriated and are infringing Cathedral's exclusive rights in the AMAZING WOMAN trademark, and the associated trade dress” by “showing and offering at . . . the 2018 Atlanta Gift Show the same homeware and giftware items” that “bear Cathedral Art's AMAZING WOMAN trademark.” ([2-1] at 1). Plaintiff further contends that Defendant's items “present Cathedral's AMAZING WOMAN mark in a stylized script writing on a soft and soothing color palette, frequently with text that espouses traditional feminine virtues and attributes, which further infringes Cathedral Art's trade dress.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that “customers are being misled and confused, including professional buyers at the Atlanta Gift Show.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff seeks immediate temporary relief to “protect the public from such confusion and deception, and to preserve Cathedral Art's goodwill as symbolized by its AMAZING WOMAN trademark and associated trade dress.”

         B. Procedural History

         On January 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint [1] and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [2]. The Motion seeks to “preclude[] Defendants from selling goods bearing Plaintiff's AMAZING WOMAN trademark and/or associated trade dress at the Atlanta Gift Show that is occurring now, until January 16, 2018.” ([2] at 1). On January 12, 2018, the Court conducted a hearing on the Motion, during which all parties were represented by counsel.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         To obtain a temporary restraining order, a party must demonstrate: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). “Temporary restraining orders are an extraordinary remedy designed to preserve the status quo, and to prevent irreparable harm before the merits of a case can be heard.” Mama's Enterprises, LLC v. United States, 883 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1132 (N.D. Ala. 2012). They are “not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites.” Schmitt v. Reimer, No. 110-cv-102, 2010 WL 3585187, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Redford v. Gwinnett Jud. Cir., 350 Fed.App'x. 341, 345 (11th Cir. 2009)).

         “A demonstration of irreparable injury by the party seeking relief is an essential prerequisite to a temporary restraining order.” 11A Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2951 (3d ed. Apr. 2017 Update); see Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (“A showing of irreparable injury is the sine qua non of injunctive relief.”). “[T]he asserted irreparable injury ‘must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.'” Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176. “An injury is ‘irreparable' only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies.” Ne. Florida Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990); see Tiber Labs., LLC v. Hawthorn Pharm., Inc., 527 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1381 (N.D.Ga. 2007) (“To establish irreparable harm, the movant must show that the injury is immediate and is not compensable by monetary damages.”). “Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough.” City of Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d at 1285.

         B. Analysis

         The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of succeeding on their trademark or trade dress claims. To establish trademark infringement under Section 43(a), Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that “(1) that it had trademark rights in the mark or name at issue and (2) that the other party had adopted a mark or name that was the same, or confusingly similar to its mark, such that consumers were likely to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.