Oroamerica Inc. v. D & W Jewelry Co.

10 F. App'x 516
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 21, 2001
DocketNo. 01-55142; D.C. No. CV-00-10661-HM
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 F. App'x 516 (Oroamerica Inc. v. D & W Jewelry Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Oroamerica Inc. v. D & W Jewelry Co., 10 F. App'x 516 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

This appeal from the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction comes to us under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3.3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.4

Oroamerica, Inc. alleges that D & W Jewelry, Inc.’s sale of certain jewelry chains infringes upon Oroamerica’s copyright in two jewelry chain designs. Oroamerica requested, and the district court denied, a preliminary injunction.

Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the request for the preliminary injunction or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or an clearly erroneous findings of fact. Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996).

We are aware of no authority to support Oroamerica’s contention that the district court was not entitled to consider the issuance of a design patent covering D & W Jewelry’s gold chain as a relevant factor in evaluating whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief. Nor can we say that the district court abused its discretion in concluding, in a balanced order based on findings derived only from the “current record,” that Oroamerica had not demonstrated either probable success on the merits or a balance of hardships tipping sharply in Oroamerica’s favor. See id.

We therefore affirm, noting that “[b]e-cause of the limited scope of our review of the law applied by the district court and because the fully developed factual record may be materially different from that initially before the district court, our disposition ... may provide little guidance as to the appropriate disposition on the merits.” Sports Form v. United Press Int’l, 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Caiz v. Roberts
224 F. Supp. 3d 944 (C.D. California, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 F. App'x 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oroamerica-inc-v-d-w-jewelry-co-ca9-2001.