Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. v. The Vineyard House, LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-00238
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Constellation Brands v. The Vineyard House: Judge Rogers granted a preliminary injunction barring wine-related uses of “TO KALON” pending trial.
The Vineyard House, LLC is temporarily barred from using “TO KALON” or confusingly similar names with wines, and from assisting others in those acts. Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. receives the preliminary relief.
What happened
In Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. v. The Vineyard House, LLC, Constellation asked the court to temporarily stop The Vineyard House from using the name “TO KALON” or similar names with wines while the case continues.
The court found that Constellation was likely to succeed on the merits, that the balance of the parties’ interests strongly favored Constellation, and that an injunction served the public interest. The court found Constellation’s showing of potential irreparable harm weaker but sufficient when considered with the other factors.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the preliminary injunction. Until trial and final resolution of this case and the related case, The Vineyard House may not use “TO KALON” or confusingly similar names with wines, or help others do so; no security bond was required.
The detailed version
- Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. v. The Vineyard House, LLC · No. 4:20-cv-00238
- Yvonne Rogers
- Feb. 21, 2020
Background
Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. moved for a preliminary injunction against The Vineyard House, LLC. A preliminary injunction is temporary relief intended to preserve the existing situation while the court decides the case. The court heard oral argument on February 20, 2020, after the motion was fully briefed.
Legal standard
The court explained that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm without preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities favors an injunction; and (4) that an injunction serves the public interest. A stronger showing on one factor may offset a weaker showing on another, but the moving party must make a threshold showing of likely success and irreparable harm.
Court’s findings
The court found that Constellation had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. It also found that the balance of equities tilted sharply toward Constellation and that issuing the injunction was in the public interest. The court described Constellation’s showing of irreparable harm as weaker, but concluded that the factors still favored granting the injunction because of Constellation’s stronger showing on the other factors.
Ruling
The court GRANTED Constellation’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Pending trial, The Vineyard House was enjoined from importing, selling, distributing, advertising, or otherwise using the name “TO KALON,” or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, colorable imitation, or confusingly similar variation of that name, in connection with wines. The Vineyard House was also enjoined from inducing, encouraging, instigating, aiding, abetting, or contributing to those acts.
The court determined, based on the parties’ agreement at oral argument, that no security bond was necessary. The injunction was to remain in effect through trial and final disposition of this case and the related case identified in the order. The order also terminated Docket Numbers 4, 16, and 45.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.