Haldiram India P Ltd v. Punjab Trading Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01462
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 HALDIRAM INDIA (P) LTD, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01462-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND GRANTING 13 PUNJAB TRADING, INC., REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Haldiram India (P) Ltd.’s Ex Parte 17 Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary 18 Injunction Should Not Issue. Dkt. No. 11. Defendant Punjab Trading, Inc. has not yet appeared or 19 responded to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion for a 20 temporary restraining order and grants the request for an order to show cause why a preliminary 21 injunction should not issue. 22 23 24 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff Haldiram India (P) Ltd. (“Haldiram”) is an Indian company that develops, 3 manufactures, and distributes Indian-style snack foods. Dkt. No. 1 at 4–5. It markets and sells a 4 set of products in the United States that is distinct from those it sells in India. Id. at 5. It owns

5 several trademarks for its products. Id. at 5–7. 6 In this lawsuit, it alleges that Defendant Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Punjab”) has altered 7 Haldiram’s products designed to be sold in India and imported, distributed, or sold them in the 8 United States without Haldiram’s authorization. Id. at 8. Haldiram asserts claims for Federal 9 Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin, and 10 Common Law Unfair Competition. Id. at 15–19. 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 empowers the court to issue a temporary restraining 13 order (“TRO”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Like a preliminary injunction, a TRO is “an extraordinary 14 remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008);

15 see also Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (the standards applicable 16 to TROs and preliminary injunctions are “substantially identical”). The Court will not 17 “mechanically” grant an injunction for every violation of law. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 18 U.S. 305, 313 (1982). Instead, plaintiffs seeking a TRO must establish that (1) they are “likely to 19 succeed on the merits,” (2) they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 20 relief,” (3) “the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,” and (4) “an injunction is in the public 21 interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. The mere “possibility” of irreparable harm is insufficient; instead, 22 the moving party must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an 23 injunction.” Id. at 22.

24 1 A TRO “is an extraordinary remedy that is generally reserved for emergency situations in 2 which a party may suffer immediate irreparable harm.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Myriad Group AG, No. 3 C 10-05604 SBA, 2011 WL 13154031, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011); see also Whirlpool Corp. 4 v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 20 n.33 (1980) (noting that temporary restraining orders are used for

5 “emergency situations”). A party’s “long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a 6 lack of urgency and irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 762 F.2d 7 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985). 8 Here, Haldiram’s lengthy delay shows that there is no emergency. In August 2024, it sent 9 a cease and desist request to Punjab, and on October 23, 2024, Punjab sent a response “refusing to 10 comply with Haldiram’s requests or to cease their unauthorized conduct.” Dkt. No. 11 at 8; see 11 also Dkt. No. 11-2 at 2, 4–14, 34–35. Yet Haldiram waited until August 4, 2025 to file this action, 12 Dkt. No. 1, and until August 20, 2025 to file this motion for a TRO, Dkt. No. 11. Its motion for a 13 TRO does not explain why it waited so long, or why the situation has now ripened into an 14 emergency.

15 In light of Haldiram’s lengthy and unexplained delay, the Court finds Haldiram has not 16 shown that an emergency exists to justify immediate ex parte relief before Punjab can be heard. 17 Instead, this matter is more appropriately considered in the context of Haldiram’s motion for a 18 preliminary injunction after Punjab has had an opportunity to respond. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Haldiram’s motion for a temporary 21 restraining order and GRANTS its request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction 22 should not issue. Dkt. No. 11. Punjab shall file its response to Haldiram’s request for a preliminary 23 injunction no later than September 10, 2025. Haldiram shall file its reply no later than September

24 1 17, 2025. In addition, because it appears that the parties have not discussed Haldiram’s claims, 2 they are encouraged to meet and confer and attempt to reach an amicable resolution. 3 Dated this 21st day of August, 2025. 4 A

5 Lauren King United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23