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.

Monster Energy Co. v. Integrated Supply Network, LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 2, 2019

MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
INTEGRATED SUPPLY NETWORK, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

          CONSUELO B. MARSHALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction. (Dkt. No. 457.)

         I. BACKGROUND

         On March 22, 2017, Plaintiff Monster Energy Company filed a complaint against Defendant asserting the following four causes of action: (1) trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (3) Unfair Competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.; and (4) California Common law unfair competition. Following a nine-day trial, a jury reached a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on its infringement claim as to its federally registered trademarks that include the word “Monster” and its trade dress, awarded zero dollars in damages to Plaintiff caused by Defendant's infringement, and awarded $5, 000, 000 in punitive damages to Plaintiff upon finding Plaintiff proved by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. (Dkt. No. 446.) The jury found in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's infringement claim as to its unregistered mark “Monster” and federally registered trademarks that include the word “Beast, ” and found that Plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant's infringement was willful. (Id.)

         II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW

         Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction under the Lanham Act and California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203.

         A. Injunctive Relief Under the Lanham Act

         15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) of the Lanham Act vests the district court with the “power to grant injunctions, according to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent the violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office or to prevent a violation under subsection (a), (c), or (d) of section 1125 of this title.” District courts must apply “‘traditional equitable principles” in deciding whether to grant permanent injunctive relief,' and the decision is ‘an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion.'” Reno Air Racing Ass'n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). “According to these equitable principles, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Id. at 1138 (citing ebay, 547 U.S. at 391). The court must conduct “a fair weighing of the factors listed above, taking into account the unique circumstances of each case, ” and “consider the totality of circumstances bearing on whether a permanent injunction is appropriate equitable relief.” La Quinta Worldwide LLC v. Q.R.T.M., S.A. de C.V., 762 F.3d 867, 880 (9th Cir. 2014).

         B. Injunctive Relief Under the UCL

         California Business & Professions Code § 17203 provides:

Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition . . ..

(Emphasis added.) “Section 17203 does not mandate . . . injunctive relief when an unfair business practice has been shown. Rather, it provides that the court” with “a grant of broad equitable power.” Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prod. Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 180 (2000); see also Zhang v. Super. Ct., 57 Cal.4th 364, 371 (Cal. 2013) (“[T]he equitable remedies of the UCL are subject to the broad discretion of the trial court.”).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Defendant's Motion to Strike

         Defendant filed a “Motion to Strike Material Outside the Trial Record” in response to the Motion, wherein Defendant requests that the Court “strike the following documents from the record”:

1. Trial Exhibit 1827 - a record of prior criminal convictions of Defendant's Senior Vice President of Marketing Scott Pilkenton;
2. Trial Exhibit 1090A - December 29, 2010 - August 31, 2018 ISN Monster Mobile Product Sales by Year Per ISN0074727
3. Excerpts of Matthew Rivera's Deposition Transcript (Dkt. 459-1);
4. Excerpts of Kimberly Stoneman's Deposition Transcript ...

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.