Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

3M Co. v. Performance Supply, LLC

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

May 4, 2020, Decided; May 4, 2020, Filed

Case No.: 1:20-cv-02949 (LAP)(KNF)

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:

Following the hearing on May 4, 2020, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Procedural History

1. Plaintiff 3M Company ("3M") commenced this lawsuit against Defendant Performance Supply, LLC ("Defendant") on April 10, 2020. See Dkt. No 1 (as re-filed at Dkt No. 9; hereinafter, the "Cplt."). 3M duly served the Defendant's President, Mr. Ronald Romano, with the Summons and Complaint on April 14, 2020. See Dkt. No. 18.

2. In the Cplt., 3M alleges that Defendant is using the "3M" trademarks to perpetrate a false and deceptive price-gouging scheme on unwitting consumers, including agencies of government, in connection with the attempted sale of 3M's N95 respirators during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Cplt. at ¶ 1.

3. In the Cplt., 3M seeks relief for: (i) federal trademark infringement under [*2]  Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (ii) federal unfair competition, false association, false endorsement, and false designation of origin under Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); (iii) federal trademark dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (iv) federal false advertising under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); (v) deceptive acts and practices under NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW ("GBL") § 349; (vi) false advertising under GBL § 350; (vii) dilution and injury to business reputation under GBL § 360-l; (viii) trademark infringement under New York common law; and (ix) unfair competition under New York common law. See generally Cplt.

4. On April 24, 2020, 3M duly filed an application (the "Application") for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction ("PI") against Defendant. See Dkt. No. 12. In support of 3M's Application, it submitted: (i) a Memorandum of Law; (ii) the Declaration of Charles Stobbie (the "Stobbie Decl."); (iii) the Declaration of David A. Crist (the "Crist Decl."); and (iv) the Declaration of A. John P. Mancini, Esq. (the "Mancini Decl."). See Dkt. No. 13-16. 3M also duly served all of the aforementioned documents on Mr. Romano on April 22, 2020 before filing them on April 24. See Dkt Nos. 13-16

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78479 *; 2020 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 10466

3M COMPANY, Plaintiff, -against- PERFORMANCE SUPPLY, LLC, Defendant.

CORE TERMS

respirators, Slogan, brand, trademark, injunction, irreparable, Registration, consumers, advertising, infringement, purported, price-gouging, distributor, manufacture, procurement, healthcare, reputation, customers, vendor, pandemic, deceptive, hardships, succeed, global, incontestable, deceive, unfair, user's, masks, counterfeiting