IN RE VUITTON ET FILS S.A. 606 F.2d 1 (2nd Cir. 1979) CASE BRIEF

IN RE VUITTON ET FILS S.A.

606 F.2d 1 (2nd Cir. 1979)

NATURE OF THE CASE: After the District Court refused to issue a temporary restraining order ex parte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) regarding defendants' alleged infringement of plaintiff's trademark, plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to issue the order.

FACTS: Vuitton (P) is a French company, a Societee anonyme, engaged in the sale and distribution of expensive leather goods, including a wide variety of luggage, handbags, wallets and jewelry cases, all under a trademark registered with the United States Patent Office in 1932. P has had to compete with New York area retailers who have been able to obtain counterfeit P merchandise from various sources and who sell that merchandise at prices considerably below those charged by P for the authentic items. P has commenced 84 actions nationwide and 53 local actions charging trademark infringement and unfair competition. P filed a complaint in the district court seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Dame Belt & Bag Co., Inc. (D) and an individual named Morty Edelstein. P claimed infringement of P's mark and unfair competition by offering for sale luggage and handbags identical in appearance to those merchandised by P. P's attorney submitted an affidavit explaining why service of process had not been effected and requesting that an Ex parte temporary restraining order be issued against Ds under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b). P's experience in several of the earliest filed cases taught it that once one member of this community of counterfeiters learned that he had been identified by P and was about to be enjoined from continuing his illegal enterprise, he would immediately transfer his inventory to another counterfeit seller, whose identity would be unknown to P. The defendants always maintained a cash business and they bought product from a person they never saw before and have never seen again. Once notice was given, the defendants easily disposed of their products. P only wanted the status quo maintained. Because P was capable of giving Ds in this action notice the district court declined to grant the request. P asked for a writ of mandamus.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner