Rag & Bone Holdings, LLC and RB Topco Sagl v. Miramar Brands Group, Inc.

Background

Rag & Bone Holdings, LLC and RB Topco Sagl asked for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. They sought to prevent Miramar Brands Group, Inc. from further interfering with their sale, use, or distribution of goods bearing or labeled under the MIRAMAR name while the court considered their pending application for a preliminary injunction. They also sought an order requiring Miramar to notify third parties that Miramar could no longer seek to prevent those activities.

The court stated that the standards for a temporary restraining order are the same as those for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs had to show irreparable harm, either a likelihood of success on at least one claim or serious questions on the merits combined with a balance of hardships favoring them, and that the relief served the public interest.

Court’s Findings

The court found that the plaintiffs had shown sufficient irreparable harm. It determined that they had already lost, and would continue to lose, valuable opportunities to build brand and product recognition during the holiday season, along with goodwill and reputation. According to the court, this harm resulted from the plaintiffs’ inability to use the name of their featured products in marketing, advertising, and promotion on platforms operated by Meta Products, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.

The court also found serious questions about the merits of the plaintiffs’ declaratory-judgment claim seeking a ruling that they did not infringe a trademark under the Lanham Act. The court identified serious questions concerning whether Miramar had a valid trademark-infringement claim, the equitable defense of laches, and the likelihood of consumer confusion. It noted that the alleged trademark was relatively weak, the parties’ products were sold in different places and purchased by different consumers, and the products differed substantially in nature and quality.

The court concluded that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs because Miramar’s conduct had occurred, and threatened to continue, during the peak holiday shopping season. The court found that the conduct had already harmed, and could continue to harm, the plaintiffs’ business and their ability to promote and build goodwill in their brand.

Order

Judge Schofield temporarily restrained and enjoined Miramar, its officers, employees, agents, affiliates, and anyone acting for it or in concert with it from initiating, taking, or facilitating the defined interference. The order did not resolve the parties’ ultimate trademark dispute; it remained in effect pending a decision on the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction application or further order of the court.

The order required Miramar, no later than two business days after entry, to notify in writing all third parties from whom it had requested or demanded action to prevent the plaintiffs’ sale, use, or distribution of goods bearing or labeled under the MIRAMAR name. The required communications had to state that Miramar was prohibited from interfering with the third party’s efforts to sell, use, or distribute goods in connection with the RAG & BONE brand until the court ruled on the preliminary-injunction application. Miramar had to attach a copy of the order to each communication and send a copy of each communication to Rag & Bone. The plaintiffs were required to post a $20,000 bond within fourteen days.