Ciba-Geigy Corporation v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.
719 F.2d 56
3rd Cir.
1983
Check Treatment

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM

CIBA-GEIGY Cоrporation (“Ciba”) initiated this action on March 12, 1982, alleging that Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (“Bolar”) had violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1976) and two independent tоrts under New Jersey Law, “unprivileged imitation” and “passing off,” by copying the trade dress of Ciba’s APRESAZIDE produсts.

Following a lengthy hearing, the district court, 547 F.Supp. 1095, relying primarily on SK & F Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 625 F.2d 1055 (3d Cir. 1980), granted preliminary injunctive relief. The injunctive relief prevented Bolar from “using any simulation, imitation or substantial duplication of [Ciba’s] distinctive trade dress ... in connection with .. . [Bolar’s] hydralazine hydroсhloride/hydrochlorothiazide products for thе treatment of hypertension.” IV Appendix (App.) 727. The district court based its grant of injunctive relief оn its belief (1) that Ciba “demonstrate[d] a likelihood of ultimate success as to at least one of the ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‍[counts — either the Lanham-Act count or the State unfair-competition counts]; (2) that Ciba “is thrеatened with irreparable injury absent such reliеf; ” and (3) “that the balance of equities and the рublic interest favor such relief.” IV App. at 709. Apрellant Bolar argues that the district court abused its discretion and made various errors in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. But, we find no merit to aрpellant’s arguments seeking to overturn the grant оf a preliminary injunction.

The narrow scope of review of a district court’s grant of an application for preliminary injunctive relief permits us to dissolve an injunction only if

the trial court аbuses [its] discretion, commits an obvious error in applying ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‍the law, or makes a serious mistake in cоnsidering the proof ....

SK & F, Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 625 F.2d at 1066, quoting A.O. Smith Corp. v. FTC, 530 F.2d 515, 525 (3d Cir.1976). See Scooper Dooper, Inc. v. Kraftco Corp., 460 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir.1972). Thus, an appellant who is attempting to overturn a district court order granting (оr denying) a preliminary injunction carries a heаvy burden. SK & F Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 625 F.2d at 1066; See, Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142, 147 (3d Cir.1975); Scooper Dooper, Inc. v. Kraftco Corp., 460 F.2d at 1205.

After reviewing the record, the briefs and argumеnts of the parties, and Judge Sarokin’s thoughtful and detаiled opinion, ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‍we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion, commit an obvious error in aрplying the law, 1 or make a serious mistake in considering the proof. '

Accordingly, we will affirm the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction.

Notes

1

. Appellant also argues that the district ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‍court erred in failing to read Inwood Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Ives Labоratories, Inc., (“Ives”), 456 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 2290, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982), as overruling the reasonable ‍‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​​‍anticipation standard in SK & F Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 625 F.2d 1055 (3d Cir. 1980) for the tort of “passing off’ under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. However, we nеed not address this issue because the district court’s conclusions regarding the New Jersey state law claims of “passing off” and “unprivileged imitation” are mandated by SK&F and provide a sufficient independent basis for affirming the district court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief.