Houbigant, Inc. v. IMG Fragrance Brands, LLC
This text of 331 F. App'x 99 (Houbigant, Inc. v. IMG Fragrance Brands, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Houbigant, Inc. and Etablissement Houbigant (together “Houbigant”) appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, J.) denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. Houbigant sought to enjoin Defendants-Appellees IMG Fragrance Brands, LLC (“IMG”), Patriarch Partners, LLC, their affiliates, and their manufacturing contractors and distributors from continuing to manufacture, market and sell products bearing trademarks Houbigant had licensed to IMG. The district court denied the motion because it found that Houbigant had failed to show irreparable harm from IMG’s continued manufacture of the goods.1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history and issues presented on appeal.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s failure to grant a preliminary injunction. Almontaser v. N. Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 519 F.3d 505, 508 (2d Cir.2008). Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion and AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
331 F. App'x 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houbigant-inc-v-img-fragrance-brands-llc-ca2-2009.