Abbott Labs. v. Adelphia Supply USA
15-3785-cv(L)
| 2d Cir. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Abbott Laboratories (and related Abbott entities) sought a preliminary injunction to stop many defendants from importing, distributing, or using in U.S. commerce Abbott’s “FreeStyle” blood-glucose test strips that were intended for international sale.
- Defendants included H&H Wholesale Services and Matrix Distributors among many others; H&H and Matrix appealed the district court’s injunction.
- The Eastern District of New York granted Abbott’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding likelihood of success on trademark infringement and risk of irreparable harm, among other Winter factors.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant for abuse of discretion.
- The appeals raised primarily two categories of challenge: likelihood of success on the trademark claims and the district court’s finding of irreparable harm absent relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on trademark infringement | Abbott argued defendants were importing and distributing foreign-labeled FreeStyle strips that infringed Abbott’s trademark rights and would cause consumer confusion. | H&H argued the district court erred in finding Abbott likely to prevail on trademark claims. | Court affirmed: district court did not abuse its discretion in finding likelihood of success. |
| Irreparable harm | Abbott argued that diversion of its branded goods and loss of control over quality/brand would cause irreparable injury absent injunction. | H&H and Matrix argued the district court erred in finding irreparable harm and that monetary remedies would suffice. | Court affirmed: the district court’s finding of irreparable harm was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Balance of equities | Abbott argued equities favored protecting trademark and public from potentially uncontrolled foreign product distribution. | Defendants argued injunction would unfairly burden their businesses. | Court affirmed district court’s balancing in Abbott’s favor. |
| Public interest | Abbott asserted public interest supports preventing unauthorized distribution of medical product bearing its mark. | Defendants contended public interest weighed against broad injunction. | Court affirmed that injunction was consistent with the public interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grand River Enter. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion review of preliminary injunction)
- Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 409 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2005) (preliminary injunction standard and review)
- Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 344 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2003) (abuse of discretion defined as clearly erroneous factfinding or incorrect legal standard)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) (application of Winter factors in this circuit)