Pessah Law Group (PLG) has secured a crucial victory for its client Yedi, Inc., a national manufacturer of kitchenware and other home goods, best known for its signature Pars Rice Cooker. In a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Yedi sued Universal Connect Wholesale for directly infringing upon Yedi’s iconic “PARS” trademark. Universal was marketing kitchenware using the confusingly similar, “Pars Collections” brand, and selling the infringing products on Amazon.com, Wayfair.com, Walmart.com and elsewhere. PLG lawyers Maurice Pessah and Summer Benson brought a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin (or stop) Universal from continuing to market, sell or otherwise distribute kitchenware products under the infringing “Pars Collections” mark.
In a recent ruling, a Federal District Judge ruled in favor of PLG’s client, holding that Yedi was “likely to succeed on its infringement claims against Universal,” and effectively shutting down the infringement at issue. In holding that the totality of facts supported a finding of consumer confusion, the Court followed the Ninth Circuit’s likelihood of confusion test in the seminal case of AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, where a Ninth Circuit panel of judges adopted the following eight factors to assess likelihood of confusion.
Plaintiff has worked to develop the reputation and goodwill of the Pars Mark since at least 1990, and it faces potential ongoing harm to that reputation from Defendants’ actions, particularly Universal’s. The Court finds that the balance of the equities weight in favor of granting a preliminary injunction against Universal and Sadaf.
Yedi has had its products featured on Oprah’s “Favorite things List,” and is an established brand. The Court considered this, and other factors, in its ruling. To obtain injunctive relief, the moving party must show, “a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in the favor of the moving party, that an injunction is in the public interest.”
The case is Yedi, Inc. v. Universal Connect Wholesale et al., and the ruling of the Court can be found here.
6-28-22
Comments