Bbu, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corporation
BBU, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Et Al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. SARA LEE CORPORATION, a Maryland Corporation; Et Al., Defendants—Appellants
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Dana M. Sabraw (district judge)
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BBU, INC., a Delaware corporation; et al., No. 09-56493 Plaintiffs - Appellees, D.C. No. 3:09-CV-01787-DMS- RBB v. SARA LEE CORPORATION, a Maryland MEMORANDUM * corporation; et al., Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding ** Submitted December 15, 2009 Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal from the district court's order granting appellees’ motion for a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
We express no view on the merits of the complaint. See Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Intern., Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982). Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunction relief. See Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009). Obtaining a preliminary injunction "requires a party to demonstrate 'that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'" Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct.
365, 374 (2008)). Here, the district court correctly identified the legal standards for likelihood of confusion of a trademark. See AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that appellees met the requirements needed to merit preliminary injunction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
jlf/Inventory 2 09-56493