Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. v. The Vineyard House, LLC ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S. Case No. 4:20-cv-00238-YGR OPERATIONS, INC., 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 6 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v. 7 Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 5, 16 THE VINEYARD HOUSE, LLC, 8 Defendant. 9 On February 20, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff Constellation Brands 10 U.S. Operations, Inc.’s (“Constellation”) motion for preliminary injunction, which was fully 11 briefed by the parties. (See Dkt. Nos. 5, 18, 20.) For the extensive reasons stated on the record, 12 and confirmed and stated herein, having carefully considered the briefing and arguments 13 submitted in this matter, the Court GRANTS Constellation’s motion for a preliminary injunction.1 14 In order to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the moving party must 15 establish that: (i) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 16 the absence of preliminary relief; (iii) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (iv) an 17 injunction is in the public interest. See Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 1124 18 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). The plaintiff must 19 make a threshold showing of likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, but a 20 stronger showing on one element may offset a weaker showing on another. Alliance for Wild 21 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131–32, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). “It is so well settled as not to 22 require citation of authority that the usual function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the 23 status quo ante litem pending a determination of the action on the merits.” Tanner Motor Livery, 24 Limited v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1963). 25 26 1 Both Constellation and defendant The Vineyard House, LLC (“TVH”) seek to file under seal materials that contain confidential, private, trade secret, and sensitive business information, 27 including financial information. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 16.) Having reviewed the materials, the 1 Here, as discussed at the oral argument, the Court finds that Constellation has 2 || demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, that the balance of equities tilt sharply in favor 3 of Constellation in granting the preliminary injunction, and that the issuance of the preliminary 4 || injunction is in the public interest. Based on the record, the Court finds that Constellation has 5 |} made a showing, albeit weaker, of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. 6 || However, in light of Constellation’s stronger showing on the other factors, see Alliance for Wild 7 || Rockies, 632 F.2d at 1131-32, the factors weigh in favor of issuing the preliminary injunction. 8 Accordingly, Constellation’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Thus, it is 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, pending trial, TVH is preliminarily enjoined from the 10 || following acts: 11 (1) Importing, selling, distributing, advertising or otherwise using the name “TO KALON” 12 or any other reproduction, counterfeit, copy, colorable imitation, or confusingly similar 13 variation of thereof, in conjunction with wines; and 14 (2) Inducing, encouraging, instigating, aiding, abetting, or contributing to any of the 15 aforesaid acts. 16 And, in light of the parties’ agreement at the oral argument, the Court determines that no 2 17 security bond is necessary as contemplated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). See Connecticut Gen. Life Z 18 Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The district court is 19 || afforded wide discretion in setting the amount of the bond . . . and the bond amount may be zero if 20 || there is no evidence the party will suffer damages from the injunction.”). 21 This preliminary injunction shall continue and remain in effect through trial and the final 22 disposition of this case and the related case, The Vineyard House, LLC vy. Constellation Brands 23 U.S. Operations, Inc., 4:19-cv-01424-YGR (N.D. Cal.). 24 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 4, 16, 45. 25 IT Is SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: February 21, 2020 Lape Hg tftees— YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE