Balenciaga Memorandum of Law in Opposition to City Merchandise's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and an Order of Seizure 1:18-cv-06748 Southern District of New York
Original Title
Balenciaga Memorandum of Law in Opposition to City Merchandise's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and an Order of Seizure
Balenciaga Memorandum of Law in Opposition to City Merchandise's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and an Order of Seizure 1:18-cv-06748 Southern District of New York
Balenciaga Memorandum of Law in Opposition to City Merchandise's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and an Order of Seizure 1:18-cv-06748 Southern District of New York
Case 1:18-cv-06748-JSR Document 30 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CITY MERCHANDISE INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BALENCIAGA AMERICA, INC.,
BALENCIAGA, §.A, and DEMNA
GVASALIA, and ABC COMPANIES,
Defendants
Case No. 18-cv-6748 (JSR)
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND AN ORDER OF SEIZURECase 1:18-cv-06748-JSR Document 30 Filed 10/18/18 Page 2 of 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ARGUMENT.
1
IL
ML
IV.
v.
VI
Legal Standard.
Plaintiff Has Not Made A Showing Of Irreparable Harm.
A Plaintiff Has Not Identified Any Harm
Redressable Under U.S. Copynght Law.
B. Any Claimed Harm Is Speculative And Not Inreparable.
C. Plaintiff's Delay Demonstrates The Lack Of reparable Harm
Plaintiff Has No Likelihood of Success On The Merits,
A Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate A Likelihood Of Success On The
Merits Of Its Attempt To Enjoin The Exportation Of Goods
B. Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate A Likelihood Of
Success On The Merits Of Its Infringement Claim,
1. Defendant Has Not Infringed Any Valid
Registered Copyright Owned By Plaintiff
Balenciaga America’s Design Is Also Protected As A Fair Use
‘The Balance Of The Hardships Does Not Tip In Favor Of Plaintiff
‘The Public Interest Does Not Weigh In Favor Of An Injunction
Plaintiffs’ Request For An Order Of Seizure Is Baseless
CONCLUSION
Page
ii
10
u
ul
16
18
19
21Case 1:18-cv-06748-JSR Document 30 Filed 10/18/18
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd,
448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006).
Blanch v. Koons,
467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006).
Borey v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa,
934 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1991)
Buffalo Forge Co. v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp,
638 F.2d 568 (2d Cir. 1981).
Campbell v. AcuffRose Music, Inc.,
510 US. 569 (1994)
Castle Rock Entm Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Grp. Inc.,
150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998)
Citibank NA. v. Citytrust,
756 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1985).
Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc v. Altai, Inc.,
982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
547 US. 388 (2006)
Energy Intelligence Grp., Inc. v_ Canaccord Genuity, Inc,
16-cv-8298, 2017 WL 1967366 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2017)
Entral Grp. Int'l, LLC v. Honey Café on Sth, Inc.,
No. 05 CV 2290, 2006 WL 3694584 (ED.N-Y. Dec. 14, 2006).
Feist Publins, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
499 US. 340 (1991)
Garcia v. Google, Inc.,
786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015)
Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Microsoft Corp,
61 F Supp. 3d 296, 300 (S.D.N.-Y. 2014)
ii
Page 3 of 26
Page(s)
17, 18
16,17
8,9
19
16, 17, 20
16
10
12, 13
18