Plaintiffs' bid for a TRO and preliminary injunctive relief fails
QVC, Inc. and Qhealth, Inc. v. Your Vitamins, Inc. d/b/a Procaps Laboratories, et al., Civ. No.10-094-SLR, July 27, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiffs' motion for a TRO, preliminary injunction and for expedited discovery is denied. Plaintiffs' motion to supplement their TRO/preliminary injunction motion to incorporate arguments relating to their amended complaint is also denied.
Plaintiffs' claims under the Lanham Act and State law consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices act stem from a series of internet posts relating to plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective dietary supplement products. Four days after filing their complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for a TRO, a preliminary injunction and sought expedited discovery requesting that the court compel defendants to withdraw the material at issue. Looking at the statements at issue in defendant’s blog, the court finds that none of them warrant injunctive relief at this time without any expert testimony or consumer surveys to support plaintiffs’ claims. To the extent plaintiffs address implied falsity, they offer responsive posts to defendant’s blogs as evidence of actual confusion. Though many of these are negative as to plaintiff, only a few correlate a decision not to buy plaintiff’s product with particular statements on the blog. Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the preliminary injunction record by reference to the parties' 1997 agreement is also denied. The accompanying papers have not yet been filed and it is not clear how facts related to a potential breach of the contract could supply evidence of actual consumer confusion.
