George Sink PA Injury Lawyers v. George Sink II Law Firm LLC
2:19-cv-01206
D.S.C.Nov 26, 2019Background
- Plaintiff George Sink P.A. owns registered service marks for "GEORGE SINK, P.A. INJURY LAWYERS" and alleges defendants (Sink Jr., Sink II, Sink III, SLA) used confusingly similar names after Sink Jr. left the firm.
- Sink Jr. signed a Confidentiality and Non‑Solicitation Agreement with an arbitration clause; plaintiff sought (and obtained) temporary injunctive relief in district court while merits proceed to arbitration.
- The August 9, 2019 preliminary injunction barred defendants from certain online and public uses of the GEORGE SINK marks (emails, website names, Facebook, bar listings) but did not address Rule 65(c) security.
- Defendants appealed the injunction to the Fourth Circuit and moved in district court to stay the injunction pending appeal; plaintiff moved to modify the injunction to require a bond.
- The district court held it retained jurisdiction to correct the procedural defect, required plaintiff to post a $500 bond, denied defendants’ stay motion, and refused to stay the arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) May the district court modify its preliminary injunction pending appeal to address the omitted bond? | Court should correct the procedural defect and impose bond to secure defendants. | Modification usurps appellate jurisdiction; court cannot act while appeal pending. | Court may modify to secure rights in aid of the appeal and did so. |
| 2) Was a Rule 65(c) bond required and what amount? | Bond required; nominal bond sufficient given low risk of harm. | Bond should reflect alleged economic harms (salary/severance, damages). | Bond required; $500 nominal bond was appropriate. |
| 3) Should the preliminary injunction be stayed pending appeal under Rule 62(d)/Hilton factors? | N/A (plaintiff opposed stay). | Stay warranted because injunction allegedly harms defendants and appeal likely to succeed. | Stay denied: defendants failed to show likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or public interest favoring stay. |
| 4) Should arbitration proceedings be stayed pending appeal? | Arbitration should proceed per agreement and court’s prior rulings. | Stay arbitration because LLCs are not parties, res judicata risk, or waiver of arbitration. | Arbitration not stayed: no bona fide dispute presented about agreement, res judicata argument misplaced, and plaintiff did not waive arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (establishes four-factor stay/injunction test)
- Dixon v. Edwards, 290 F.3d 699 (district court may modify injunction in aid of appeal)
- Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal v. United States, 947 F.2d 1188 (district court retains jurisdiction to act in aid of appeal)
- Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (district court must address Rule 65(c) security; preliminary injunction standards)
- Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174 F.3d 411 (failure to address bond can be reversible error)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (injunctions governed by four‑factor equitable test)
- Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144 (likelihood of consumer confusion analysis in trademark cases)
- Aggarao v. MOL Ship Mgmt. Co., 675 F.3d 355 (status quo and prohibitory vs. mandatory injunctions)
- Christopher Phelps & Assocs., LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532 (discussion of injunctive relief presumptions in IP contexts)