Ole Mexican Foods Inc. v. SK Market Inc.
2:25-cv-01877
C.D. Cal.May 13, 2025Background
- Olé Mexican Foods owns federally registered trademarks for the "Olé" brand, used for authentic Mexican-inspired foods sold primarily through grocery stores in Southern California.
- SK Market adopted and uses the name "Olé City Market" for its grocery stores, which sell a broad array of goods, not limited to Mexican food.
- SK Market filed intent-to-use trademark applications for "Olé City Market" and was notified by Olé Mexican Foods of alleged infringements, but could not resolve the dispute.
- Olé Mexican Foods initiated a trademark opposition proceeding before the USPTO and brought this federal action alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related state law violations.
- Olé sought a preliminary injunction to prevent SK Market from using or expanding use of the "Olé City Market" mark pending the litigation.
- After full briefing and oral argument, the district court denied Olé's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of confusion | Marks are similar; SK Market's use will confuse consumers | Marks are dissimilar; goods/services not closely related | No sufficient likelihood of confusion |
| Irreparable harm | SK Market's use harms Olé's brand and reputation | SK Market would suffer harm if enjoined; no injury to Olé shown | Olé failed to show irreparable harm |
| Balance of equities | Harm to Olé's trademark outweighs inconvenience to SK Market | No separate argument; referenced own potential business harms | Factor neutral; no persuasive showing |
| Public interest | Public interest in avoiding confusion supports injunction | Not directly addressed | Neutral; no evidence of current confusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Preliminary injunctions require a clear showing; an extraordinary remedy.)
- Am. Trucking Ass’ns Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046 (Four-factor test for preliminary injunctions in the Ninth Circuit.)
- Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (Likelihood of success on the merits is the most important preliminary injunction factor.)
- Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (Irreparable harm must be likely, not speculative, for injunction.)
- Interstellar Starship Servs., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 304 F.3d 936 (Eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act.)