2 total
Interlocutory injunction granted to restrain passing off but denied for enforcing an impractical restrictive covenant.
The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant preventing the defendants from soliciting their alarm security customers, and to restrain the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs.
The court dismissed the motion regarding the restrictive covenant, finding that the plaintiffs' rebranding and refusal to provide customer lists made compliance impractical.
However, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs or as authorized by them, citing clear evidence of dishonest sales tactics.
Motions by both parties to adduce fresh evidence on an interlocutory injunction motion were granted.
The plaintiffs and defendants both brought motions to adduce fresh evidence in the context of an ongoing motion for an interlocutory injunction.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the alleged repetition of the impugned conduct was relevant to assessing the nature of the conduct and the appropriate remedial response in a dynamic marketplace situation.
The court also granted the defendants' motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting that since the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce fresh evidence, the defendants were entitled to adduce further responding evidence.
Costs were reserved to be addressed as part of the costs of the interlocutory injunction motion.
