Ink Projects, LLC v. Ruben Kasper, LLC
2:23-cv-01568
| D. Nev. | May 28, 2024Background
- Perma Blend (Ink Projects, LLC) and Brow Daddy (Ruben Kasper, LLC) entered a co-branding agreement to sell brow and permanent makeup products.
- The agreement auto-renewed yearly but could only be terminated for cause with written notice; Brow Daddy attempted to terminate during the 2023-2024 term, which Perma Blend contested as ineffective.
- After the failed termination, Brow Daddy publicly questioned the safety of Perma Blend's products and filed trademark infringement notices that resulted in removal of co-branded products from online stores, significantly impacting sales.
- Perma Blend alleges economic, reputational, and business relationship damages from Brow Daddy’s actions and seeks a preliminary injunction to stop alleged ongoing harm.
- The parties dispute the enforceability and scope of a choice-of-law clause (Delaware law) in their agreement, which impacts the applicable law for all pending motions, including defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.
- The court denied the preliminary injunction and motions to dismiss (the latter without prejudice), finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and requiring more complete briefing on the choice-of-law issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary Injunction | Needs to stop defendants' disruptive conduct; alleged irreparable harm | No irreparable harm; only economic losses | Denied: No showing of likelihood of irreparable injury |
| Choice-of-law Clause | Delaware law should govern based on contract clause | Scope and enforceability questioned | Supplemental briefing ordered; motions to dismiss denied w/o prejudice |
| Economic vs. Irreparable Harm | Losses include reputation, goodwill, customer relationships | Harms are speculative, monetary and reparable | Only economic damages shown; no injunction |
| Scope of Clause Over Claims | Agreement covers all claims | Not all defendants/claims are bound | Parties must supplement with Nevada law arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law in diversity cases)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, not awarded as of right)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets the elements courts must consider for a preliminary injunction)
- Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980) (monetary damages are not irreparable harm)
- Regents of Univ. of California v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 747 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1984) (preliminary injunction may only be granted for likely intangible injuries, not merely possible ones)