Case 1:15-cv-05826-CBA-MDG Document 423 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 4630
`Case 1:15—cv—O5826—CBA—MDG Document 423 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 Of 3 Page|D #: 4630
`
`FILED
`IN CLIHCC TFIGE
`U3. DBTRICT OOIHT E.D.N.Y.
`.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`* APR 2 9 2015 *
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`__________________________________________________________x
`
`ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al.,
`
`gnoopqyu opncg
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`ADELPHIA SUPPLY USA et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________________________X
`
`AMON, United States District Judge:
`
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`MEMORANDUM & ORDER
`
`15-CV-5826 (CBA) (MDG)
`
`Before the Court is the third request for a preliminary injunction from plaintiffs Abbott
`
`Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., and Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corp. (collectively,
`
`“Abbott”). The Court has already granted preliminary injunctions against two groups of
`
`defendants in this trademark—infringement action. (E D.E. # 131, “First P.I. M&O”; D.E.
`
`# 258, “Second P.I. M&O.”) Abbott now seeks a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and
`
`preliminary injunction against a third group of defendants, namely 206 new defendants
`
`associated with 108 independent sellers of the international FreeStyle diabetic test strips at issue
`
`in this case (collectively, the “new defendants”).
`
`(§_e_e D.E. # 309 at 4.) The Court issued an
`
`Order to show cause why a TRO and preliminary injunction should not issue that set a briefing
`
`schedule and a hearing date. (gig D.E. # 314.) No defendants opposed the TRO, in writing or at
`
`the TRO hearing. (S3; Minute Entry dated April 7, 2016.) The Court therefore granted the
`
`unopposed TRO. (& D.E. # 352.)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-05826-CBA-MDG Document 423 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4631
`Case 1:15—cv—O5826—CBA—MDG Document 423 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 3 Page|D #: 4631
`
`Similarly, no party has opposed the preliminary injunction, either in writing or at the
`
`evidentiary hearing held ‘on April 25, 2016.‘ The Court now grants the unopposed request for a
`
`preliminary injunction.
`
`FACTUAL FINDINGS
`
`Many of the Court's factual findings from the First P.I. M&O apply equally to the instant
`
`request. As the Court found there, Abbott owns the family of trademarks that appear on
`
`FreeStyle and FreeStyle Lite blood glucose test strips, which individuals with diabetes use to
`
`monitor their blood-sugar levels. (First P.I. M&O at 2.) Abbott sells FreeStyle strips in the
`
`United States and around the world. (lg) Although the test strips themselves are identical
`
`wherever sold, the international packages contain a number of differences from the domestic
`
`ones, discussed in detail in the First P.I. M850. (3 at 2-5.) Abbott proffers uncontested
`
`evidence that the new defendants engaged in the domestic sale of international FreeStyle test
`
`strips. (fie; D.E. # 307, Second Am. Compl.1l1] 52, 54, 70-71, 95-248, 283-89; D.E. # 310,
`
`Declaration of Geoffrey Potter dated March 28, 2016; D.E. # 311, Declaration of Thomas J.
`
`Kneir dated March 25, 2016; D.E. # 312, Declaration of Brian Cairl dated March 28, 2016.)
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) that there is either a likelihood
`
`of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits; (2) that there is a
`
`likelihood of irreparable harm for which remedies at law would be inadequate; (3) that the
`
`balance of hardships tips in the plaintiff's favor; and (4) that the public interest would not be
`
`disserved by issuing preliminary relief. §e_e Winter V. NRDC, 555 US. 7, 20 (2008); Am. Civil
`
`1 Many of new defendants have stipulated to the preliminary injunction. (Egg D.E. # 320, 322, 323, 333, 334, 335,
`336, 338, 339, 342, 345, 346, 348, 349, 357, 363, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 383, 396, 397, 408, 41].) Abbott has
`voluntarily dismissed others.
`(S_ee, D.E. # 337, 347, 358.)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-05826-CBA-MDG Document 423 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 4632
`Case 1:15—cv—O5826—CBA—MDG Document 423 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 3 Page|D #: 4632
`
`Liberties Union V. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, 825 (2d Cir. 2015); Salinger V. Colting, 607 F.3d 68,
`
`79-80 (2d Cir. 2010).
`
`LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
`
`As stated above, Abbott’s request for a preliminary injunction is uncontested. As the
`
`Court has already twice found, Abbott is likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark-
`
`infringement claim because the differences between international and domestic FreeSty1e test
`
`strips are material and the gray marketing of those strips interferes with Abbott’s quality-control
`
`measures. ($53 First P.I. M&O at 8-15; Second P.I. M&O at 5-11.) Absent preliminary relief,
`
`Abbott will likely suffer irreparable harm to its consumer goodwill or reputation.
`
`(S_e§ First P.I.
`
`M&O at 15-23; Second P.I. M&O at 11-13.) The hardships balance in Abbott’s favor, and
`
`preliminary relief does not disserve the public.
`
`(§ge_ First P.I. M&O at 23-24; Second P.I. M&O
`
`at 13-14.) Abbott therefore satisfies the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons, Abbott’s request for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The
`
`attached ORDER details the terms of the injunction.
`
`SO ORDE
`
`D.
`
`, 2016
`Dated: April
`Brooklyn, New York
`
`/"\
`
`/
`
`Carol Bagxy
`
`United States
`
`_
`
`j
`
`rict Judge