Le v. Huynh

Background

Dien Le alleged that he owns Hue Restaurant, a Vietnamese restaurant in a San Jose shopping center, and owns a valid copyright in its menu. He alleged that his former employee, Trinh Ngoc Huynh, opened Huynh Dining across the street and that the restaurant used a confusingly similar name, the same offerings, and an almost identical menu.

Le’s complaint asserted copyright infringement, violations of the federal trademark statute known as the Lanham Act, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and California law. He filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order without notice to the defendants and asked the court to require them to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

Legal standard

The court explained that an emergency restraining order issued without notice requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur. The moving party’s attorney must also certify in writing the efforts made to notify the opposing party and why notice should not be required.

The court stated that the standards for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are the same. Le therefore had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without an order, that the balance of hardships favored him, and that the order would serve the public interest.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Le’s attorney had not provided the required certification explaining why notice should not be required. The court called that failure independently fatal to the request for a temporary restraining order.

The court also questioned whether injunctive relief was necessary. It found the restaurant names—Hue Restaurant and Huynh Dining—distinct, and it was reluctant to prevent Huynh from using her own last name merely because the names shared two letters. The court also found that the logos were not similar.

The court was not persuaded by Le’s copyright arguments. It described differences in the menus’ backgrounds, fonts, spacing, illustrations, use of Vietnamese diacritical marks, headings, and organization. Although the menus included similar dishes, they were not identical: Hue Restaurant’s menu had 76 items, while Huynh Dining’s had 67.

Because Le had not shown a likelihood of success, the court hesitated to stop defendants from using their menu or restaurant name, which could prevent them from doing business. The court acknowledged Le’s concern that customer confusion was causing lost business but found that he had not shown irreparable injury from waiting to present full arguments on a preliminary-injunction motion. The court also found that Le had not shown that the public interest favored an order.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and the request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The court stated that Le could file a preliminary-injunction motion that gives defendants proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.