Fiji Water Co., LLC v. Fiji Mineral Water USA, LLC - 741 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

Rule:

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 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.

Facts:

Plaintiffs Fiji Water Company LLC, Paramount International Export Ltd., and Natural Waters of Viti Limited (collectively "FIJI") produce and market bottled still "natural artesian water" from the Republic of Fiji, which they have distributed in the United States since 1997 under the registered trademark "FIJI." Defendants Fiji Mineral Water USA, LLC, FMW USA Licensing, LLC, Mineral Waters of Fiji, Pure Mineral Waters of Fiji, LLC, Fiji Imports, LLC, Straub Distributing Company, LLC, Straub Distributing Company, Ltd., Coast Beverage Group, LLC, Global H20 Distributors, Inc. (collectively "VITI") also produce bottled "natural artesian mineral water" from the mountains of Fiji, and began distributing heir water in the United States under the label "VITI" in April 2009. In October 2009, FIJI filed suit against VITI for federal law claims of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and California statutory and common law claims for unfair competition. Subsequently, FIJI brought a motion for a preliminary injunction against VITI, alleging that the marketing and sale of VITI water in the United States irreparably harms FIJI by infringing on FIJI's trade dress.

Issue:

Was a preliminary injunction in favor of FIJI warranted under the circumstances?  

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court granted FIJI’s motion for preliminary injunction since it was likely to succeed on a trade dress infringement claim under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a) in relation to packaging and design elements of bottled artesian water from the Republic of Fiji. According to the court, FIJI had a protectable, non-functional trade dress that was inherently distinctive. Also, a likelihood of irreparable harm was shown, the balance of hardship tipped in favor of granting a preliminary injunction, and the public interest favored a preliminary injunction because a likelihood of confusion was shown.