On November 21, we blogged that the Northern District of California denied a motion by Rovio Entertainment Ltd. ("Rovio"), the developer of the video game Angry Birds, for an ex parte temporary restraining order ("TRO") against alleged counterfeiters of Angry Birds plush toys. Rovio moved for the TRO in connection with its copyright and trademark infringement action against Royal Plush Toys, Inc., Western Sales and Services Inc., Royal Trade Int'l Inc. and John K. Park (collectively, "Defendants"), stemming from Defendants' allegedly intentional and willful sale of infringing plush toys in violation of Rovio's copyright and trademark rights. Despite denying Rovio's motion for a TRO, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong ordered an expedited hearing schedule on Rovio's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants from manufacturing, distributing, supplying or selling the allegedly infringing merchandise.
On November 27, 2012, the Court granted Rovio's motion for a preliminary injunction. To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. In granting Rovio's motion, Judge Armstrong found that Rovio established all four elements, including that Rovio is likely to suffer substantial damage to its reputation and goodwill if Defendants are allowed to continue to sell substantially similar yet inferior plush toys. The Court also granted Rovio's renewed request for expedited discovery relating to certain documents, finding Defendants' failure to respond to Rovio's motion to constitute implicit consent and that Rovio showed good cause to justify such expedited discovery in light of evidence that Defendants may conceal or dispose of relevant evidence.
Rovio's copyright and trademark infringement claims against Defendants remain pending. We will continue to monitor this case with interest.
This article first appeared in Entertainment Law Matters, a Frankfurt Kurnit legal blog.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
