In the Matter of Vuitton et Fils S.A.
606 F.2d 1 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An ex parte temporary restraining order is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) in trademark counterfeiting cases where providing notice to the defendant would render further litigation fruitless by giving them an opportunity to conceal or dispose of the infringing goods.
Facts:
- Vuitton et Fils S.A. (Vuitton) is a French company that manufactures and sells luxury leather goods under a registered trademark.
- Vuitton discovered that various New York retailers, including Dame Belt & Bag Co., Inc. and Morty Edelstein, were selling counterfeit merchandise that was virtually identical in appearance to its genuine products.
- Vuitton had previously filed 84 actions nationwide against other alleged counterfeiters.
- Based on its experience in prior lawsuits, Vuitton concluded that counterfeiters operate in closely-knit networks and, upon receiving notice of a lawsuit, would typically transfer their inventory to another seller or otherwise dispose of it to frustrate litigation.
- Vuitton also found that these counterfeiters generally maintain few, if any, business records, making it difficult to trace the source or distribution of the counterfeit goods once they are moved.
Procedural Posture:
- Vuitton filed a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition against Dame Belt & Bag Co. and Morty Edelstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (a federal trial court).
- Along with the complaint, Vuitton's attorney submitted an affidavit requesting an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO).
- The district court judge held a hearing on Vuitton's ex parte application.
- The district court denied the request for the ex parte TRO on the grounds that Vuitton was capable of giving notice to the defendants.
- The district court also denied Vuitton's motion to certify the issue for an interlocutory appeal.
- Vuitton (petitioner) then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (a federal intermediate appellate court), asking it to compel the district court to issue the TRO.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's showing that alleged trademark counterfeiters will likely destroy or transfer infringing inventory if given notice of a lawsuit satisfy the requirements for an ex parte temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A plaintiff's demonstration that alleged trademark counterfeiters are likely to dispose of or conceal infringing goods upon receiving notice of a lawsuit is sufficient to justify the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order under Rule 65(b). The rule permits such orders when a plaintiff shows both immediate and irreparable injury and provides a valid reason why notice should not be required. In a trademark infringement case, the substantial likelihood of consumer confusion from counterfeit goods constitutes irreparable injury. The reason notice should not be required is satisfied by showing that, for this specific type of defendant, notice would likely serve only to render further court action fruitless, as the defendants could use the warning to destroy or transfer the evidence. Granting an ex parte TRO in these circumstances is necessary to preserve the status quo and the court's ability to provide effective final relief.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial procedural tool for holders of intellectual property rights, particularly in trademark law. It formally recognizes that the transient and illicit nature of counterfeiters' business practices can justify departing from the strong legal presumption in favor of giving notice to an adverse party. The ruling effectively allows brand owners to conduct 'seizure' actions, preventing counterfeiters from destroying or hiding infringing goods between the time a suit is filed and a hearing can be held. This precedent has shaped litigation strategy in trademark enforcement, making it possible to effectively pursue counterfeiters who might otherwise evade legal consequences through a 'shell game' of moving inventory.
Unlock the full brief for In the Matter of Vuitton et Fils S.A.