Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BRACH VAN HOUTEN HOLDING, INC. v. SAVE BRACH'S COA

June 21, 1994

BRACH VAN HOUTEN HOLDING, INC., and E.J. BRACH CORPORATION, Plaintiffs,
v.
SAVE BRACH'S COALITION FOR CHICAGO, Defendant.


Kocoras


The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES P. KOCORAS

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge:

 This matter is before the Court on a motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.

 BACKGROUND

 The plaintiffs, Brach Van Houten Holding, Inc. and E.J. Brach Corporation (collectively, "Brach's"), move for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendant, Save Brach's Coalition for Chicago ("Save Brach's"), from incorporating Brach's trademark logo into Save Brach's promotional materials.

 Save Brach's is a coalition whose goal is to prevent Brach's from closing its candy factory on the West Side of Chicago. Their members include Teamsters Local 738, the Midwest Center for Labor Research, and the Garfield-Austin Interfaith Network. Their goal is certainly laudable. However, Brach's objects to one of their proposals for achieving that goal, which calls for significant changes in management. Save Brach's submitted the proposal to Brach's for its approval, which Brach's refused. Brach's now seeks to enjoin Save Brach's from using the federally registered Brach's logo or imitations thereof, because Brach's does not want for it to appear that Brach's endorses the Save Brach's proposal.

 Brach's holds federal registrations for a logo bearing the word Brach's over a striped background, where a small star is used instead of an apostrophe. Since 1962, Brach's has used pink and purple stripes in the logo just described.

 LEGAL STANDARD

 The criteria for granting a preliminary injunction require the party seeking the order to show the following:

 
- the lack of an adequate remedy available at law;
 
- irreparable harm if the motion is denied;
 
- the balance of the harms weighs in its favor;
 
- the public interest is served by granting the motion; and
 
- the moving party has a likelihood of succeeding ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.