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 GRANTING IN PART

12 v. MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

13 PUNJAB TRADING, INC.,

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. Haldiram has brought this action for trademark

19 infringement and seeks an order enjoining Defendant Punjab Trading, Inc. from importing,

20 distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale Punjab’s gray market goods that contain Haldiram’s

21 trademarks. Id. at 1–2. Punjab has not appeared or responded to the motion. For the reasons set

22 forth below, the Court grants in part the motion for a preliminary injunction.

23

24

1 I. BACKGROUND

2 ||A. Haldiram Sells Different Versions of its Snack Foods in India and in the United

States

3

Haldiram is an Indian company that develops, manufactures, and distributes Indian-style

4

snack foods. Dkt. No. 1 at 4-5. Haldiram owns the following trademarks for its products

5

(collectively, “Haldiram’s Marks”):

6

7

ain Reg. No. 2,766,286 for “[p]rocessed nuts,

8 a ha ; namely, peanuts and cashews; preserved fruits;

A TRILL preserved vegetables; dried fruits; dried

9 vegetables; cooked vegetables; fried potatoes,”

and more. Dkt. No. 11-2 at 41.

10

Reg. No. 2,357,883 for “candy, cereal based

11 ns snack foods, and a line of bakery goods.” /d. at

reel 39.

12

13 Gp Reg. No. 1,963,956 for “snack mix consisting

Hf ifr ‘ primarily of crackers, pretzels, . . . candied

14 aidirams nuts, and candy.” /d. at 37.

15

Haldiram “is well-known in the United States as a source of Indian-style food products,” and

16

through its “advertising, marketing, and promotional efforts, Haldiram has developed a highly

17

favorable reputation and substantial goodwill in the marketplace in the United States all

18

symbolized” by Haldiram’s marks. Dkt. No. 11-5 at 2.

19

Haldiram’s products manufactured for U.S. consumers “are materially different” than the

20

versions sold domestically in India. Dkt. No. 11-5 at 2. It manufactures and packages products for

21

the U.S. market “to ensure that the contents, packaging, and labelling of Haldiram United States

22

products comply with United States laws and regulations” and cater to “the preferences of United

23

States customers[.]” Dkt. No. 11-5 at 2. Specifically, Haldiram’s products made for the United

24

1 States include “Nutrition Facts” labels that comply with regulations from the Food and Drug

2 Administration (“FDA”). Id. at 2–3. “In contrast, the ‘Nutritional Information’ label found on the

3 packaging for Haldiram’s domestic India products is not FDA compliant” because it omits required

4 nutrition information and does not comply with U.S. formatting regulations. Id. at 3.

5 In addition to packaging differences, “[t]he composition and formulations of Haldiram’s

6 United States products differ from Haldiram’s domestic India products.” Id. For example,

7 Haldiram’s United States Kaju Mixture contains 12 percent cashews, while the Indian Kaju

8 Mixture contains 10 percent cashews. Id. The Indian Kaju Mixture also contains spices and

9 synthetic food color that are not found in the U.S. version. Id. Finally, the U.S.-bound and Indian

10 versions of the products direct customers to different customer service entities, and only the

11 customer service entity that is designated on Haldiram’s U.S. products “can properly address

12 concerns that consumers raise about Haldiram’s products that have been exported into the United

13 States.” Id. at 3–4.

14 B. Haldiram’s Distributor Found that Punjab is Selling Infringing Products

15 Haldiram distributes its products in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, and Montana

16 exclusively through Reshmi’s Group, Inc. Dkt. No. 11-4 at 2. The Haldiram products Reshmi sells

17 and distributes in those states are “produced and packaged by Haldiram’s exclusively for the

18 United States market.” Id. In early July 2024, Reshmi employees were overseeing the loading of

19 product for a customer when they observed a case of Haldiram’s Nut Cracker product marked

20 “NOT FOR EXPORT” inside the customer’s vehicle. Id. The customer informed Reshmi’s

21 employees that it obtained the product from Punjab, and Reshmi’s Executive Vice President—

22 Syed Mohammad Ali Masood—confirmed on inspection that “the products in the case were not

23 Haldiram’s products produced for the U.S. market.” Id. For example, the product included

24

1 temporary “Nutrition Facts” stickers “affixed over the printed nutrition panel on the packaging.”

2 Id.; see also id. at 13–16.

3 In light of this discovery, Mr. Masood commenced an investigation of unauthorized

4 Haldiram products distributed into the Washington market. Id. at 2–3. In July 2024, Mr. Masood

5 visited Punjab’s warehouse and the All India Spice retail store, located in Auburn, Washington,

6 where he saw a number of Haldiram India Products displayed on the shelf for sale. Id. at 3. Those

7 packages—including two he purchased—were labelled “NOT FOR EXPORT” and included

8 temporary “Nutrition Facts” stickers affixed over the nutritional information panels printed on the

9 original packages. Id. at 3, 18, 20–21. He observed “[s]imilar inconsistencies” on other Haldiram

10 products located in Punjab’s warehouse. Id. at 3. Other Reshmi employees visited the Apna Bazar

11 and Dhotsons retail stores in Washington, where they purchased Haldiram products that were not

12 intended for the U.S. market. Id. at 3–4. The Haldiram products found at Apna Bazar and Dhotsons

13 included temporary “Nutrition Facts” stickers affixed over the printed nutrition panel on their

14 packages. Id. at 3–4. The packages at Apna Bazar also included stickers that stated “PRODUCT

15 OF INDIA” affixed over their printed “NOT FOR EXPORT” labels, id. at 3, 23, 25–31, while the

16 packages purchased at Dhotsons had the words “NOT FOR EXPORT” visible, id. at 4, 33, 35–38.

17 These stickers were not affixed to the products by Haldiram or anyone authorized by Haldiram.

18 Dkt. No. 11-5 at 4.

19 Mr. Masood concluded that the Haldiram products purchased from Apna Bazar and

20 Dhotsons also came from Punjab because they “had the same packaging, batch numbers, and

21 labelling inconsistencies as the products [he] observed during [his] prior visit to Punjab Trading.”

22 Dkt. No. 11-4 at 4. Reshmi’s “is continuously monitoring the marketplace” and is “currently seeing

23 unauthorized Haldiram’s products not produced for the U.S. market appearing in retail stores in

24 Washington.” Id.

1 Haldiram has likewise concluded that Punjab is importing, distributing, and/or selling

2 Haldiram products that were not intended for the United States market. Dkt. No. 11-5 at 4. Punjab

3 is not an authorized importer, distributor, or reseller of Haldiram products. Id.

4 On August 29, 2024, Haldiram sent correspondence to Punjab regarding their unauthorized

5 actions but received no response. Dkt. No. 11-2 at 2, 4–14. Haldiram’s counsel followed up with

6 a cease and desist letter in October 2024. Id. at 2, 16–32. The same month, Punjab responded to

7 Haldiram’s counsel and stated that it was not Punjab’s intention “to act as distributor of

8 Haldiram[’]s” products and that it was “not aware of import restrictions of Haldiram[’]s products.”

9 Id. at 34. It also requested a “conference to discuss proper channels of distribution of Haldiram’s

10 products.” Id. at 34–35.

11 C. Haldiram Files Suit

12 On August 4, 2025, Haldiram filed this action alleging that Punjab has altered Haldiram’s

13 products designed to be sold in India and imported, distributed, or sold them in the United States

14 without Haldiram’s authorization. Dkt. No. 1 at 8. It asserts claims for Federal Trademark

15 Infringement under 16 U.S.C. § 1114, Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin

16 under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and Common Law Unfair Competition. Id. at 15–19. Haldiram served

17 the complaint and a draft of its Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order

18 to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue on Punjab on August 15, 2025,

19 and did not make substantive changes to the drafts prior to filing. Dkt. No. 11-3 at 2, 4–7, 9.

20 Haldiram also notified Punjab on August 20 that it would file this motion. Id. at 2. Haldiram did

21 not receive a response or other communications from Punjab before it filed this motion. Id.

22 Haldiram filed the motion on August 20, 2025, Dkt. No. 11, and the next day the Court

23 denied the request for an ex parte TRO, finding that Haldiram’s lengthy delay in seeking that relief

24 undercut its professed need for emergency relief before Punjab could be heard, Dkt. No. 13 at 3.

1 However, the Court granted Haldiram’s request for an order to show cause why a preliminary

2 injunction should not issue and set a briefing schedule, including a September 10, 2025 deadline

3 for Punjab to respond to Haldiram’s request for a preliminary injunction. Id. at 3–4.

4 Punjab subsequently filed a motion for an extension of its September 10 response deadline

5 because it was “consulting with attorneys to represent [it] regarding this matter.” Dkt. No. 16 at 1.

6 The Court struck that pro se motion because it was not properly before the Court, explaining that

7 “[b]usiness entities other than sole proprietorships must be represented by counsel and cannot

8 proceed pro se.” Dkt. No. 19 at 1–2. In the same order, the Court granted Haldiram’s motion for

9 default, Dkt. No. 18, finding that Haldiram had served Punjab on August 15, 2025, see Dkt. No. 7

10 at 2–4, but Punjab had failed to appear or otherwise defend, Dkt. No. 19 at 2. In the intervening

11 months, Punjab has not appeared or responded to the motion for a preliminary injunction.

12 II. DISCUSSION

13 A. Legal Standard

14 To obtain a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs must establish (1) that they are “likely to

15 succeed on the merits,” (2) that they are “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

16 preliminary relief,” (3) “that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor,” and (4) “that an injunction

17 is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The mere “possibility” of

18 irreparable harm is insufficient; instead, the moving party must “demonstrate that irreparable

19 injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Id. at 22.

20 The Ninth Circuit employs a “sliding scale” approach, under which the four elements are

21 balanced “so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.”

22 All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). For example, “‘serious

23 questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can

24 support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a

1 likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1135. The

2 moving party bears the burden of persuasion and must make a clear showing that it is entitled to

3 such relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22.

4 Although individual appellate panels have questioned the usefulness of the distinction, the

5 Ninth Circuit distinguishes between “mandatory” and “prohibitory” injunctions. Hernandez v.

6 Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 997–98 (9th Cir. 2017). Prohibitory injunctions “aim to preserve the status

7 quo by preventing a party from taking action,” while mandatory injunctions “alter[] the status quo

8 by requiring a party to take action and thus place[] a higher burden on the plaintiff to show the

9 facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams, 153 F.4th 704,

10 717 (9th Cir. 2025) (citation modified). Here, Haldiram seeks a prohibitory injunction that

11 precludes Punjab from importing, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale Punjab’s gray

12 market goods that contain Haldiram’s trademarks, see Dkt. No. 11 at 1–2, which was the state of

13 the “the legally relevant relationship between the parties before the controversy arose,” that is,

14 before the action challenged in the complaint occurred, Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757

15 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis omitted).

16 The Lanham Act provides that injunctions may be granted “to prevent the violation of any

17 right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office[.]” 15 U.S.C.

18 § 1116(a); see also Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing

19 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a)).

20 B. The Court Issues a Preliminary Injunction

21 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

22 Haldiram argues that it is likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claim because

23 Punjab is selling gray market Haldiram India Products in the United States even though those

24

1 products “are not authorized for sale in the United States.” Dkt. No. 11 at 10. It further contends

2 that

3 [e]ven where goods bearing a United States trademark are authorized for sale by a

plaintiff in another country, a defendant who sells these goods in the United States

4 is liable for trademark infringement if the imported goods are materially different

than those authorized by the plaintiff for sale in the United States.

5

Id. at 11. This is because “materially different imported goods are not ‘genuine’ and are therefore

6

not exempt from claims of trademark infringement.” Id. It argues that it has established that it has

7

valid trademark rights and that Punjab’s sale of India Haldiram Products is likely to confuse U.S.

8

consumers. Id. at 11–12.

9

Punjab has not responded to this motion, which the Court construes “as an admission that

10

the motion has merit.” LCR 7(b)(2). Even without that admission, the Court finds that Haldiram

11

has shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

12

To prevail on a trademark infringement claim, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) it has a valid,

13

protectable trademark, and (2) that [the defendant’s] use of the mark is likely to cause confusion.”

14

Applied Info. Scis. Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2007). “Registration of a mark

15

on the Principal Register in the Patent and Trademark Office constitutes prima facie evidence of

16

the validity of the registered mark and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark on the

17

goods and services specified in the registration.” Id. at 970 (citation modified). Haldiram owns

18

several registered trademarks encompassing the classes and categories of goods sold by Punjab.

19

Dkt. No. 11-5 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 11-2 at 2, 37 (Reg. No. 1,963,956 for “snack mix consisting

20

primarily of crackers, pretzels, . . . candied nuts, and candy”), 39 (Reg. No. 2,357,883 for “candy,

21

cereal based snack foods, and a line of bakery goods”), 41 (Reg. No. 2,766,286 for a variety of

22

similar products). Because these marks are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark

23

Office (“USPTO”), they are presumed valid, and Haldiram—as the owner of the registered

24

1 marks—is presumed to have the exclusive right to use the marks in connection with the goods

2 listed in its registration. See, e.g., Applied Info. Scis. Corp., 511 F.3d at 970.

3 As set forth more fully above, Punjab has sold and is selling goods using the Haldiram

4 marks without permission. Dkt. No. 11-5 at 4. At this point, the Court need not parse which Punjab-

5 sold products are covered by which registration and whether they are within the scope of the goods

6 specified in the registration because “the scope of validity and the scope of relief for infringement

7 are not coextensive.” Applied Info. Scis. Corp., 511 F.3d at 971 (“Although the validity of a

8 registered mark extends only to the listed goods or services, an owner’s remedies against confusion

9 with its valid mark are not so circumscribed.”). Consequently, “a trademark owner may seek

10 redress if another’s use of the mark on different goods or services is likely to cause confusion with

11 the owner’s use of the mark in connection with its registered goods[.]” Id.; see also id. at 972

12 (“Having established a protectable interest by proving it is the owner of a registered trademark,

13 the owner does not additionally have to show that the defendant’s allegedly confusing use involves

14 the same goods or services listed in the registration.”).

15 Haldiram argues that Punjab’s sale of gray market goods containing Haldiram’s Marks

16 constitutes infringement. Dkt. No. 11 at 11–15. A gray-market good is “a foreign-manufactured

17 good, bearing a valid United States trademark, that is imported without the consent of the United

18 States trademark holder.” K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 285 (1988). The Haldiram

19 products at issue here fall within that definition because they were manufactured in India, they

20 bear Haldiram’s Marks, and they were imported into the United States without Haldiram’s consent.

21 See Dkt. No. 11-5 at 2–4. That said, whether the products are technically characterized as gray-

22 market products or not ultimately does not determine whether infringement occurred or the

23 solution. See, e.g., Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc., 738 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013).

24

1 Gray-market goods do not infringe if they are “genuine,” meaning that they “do[] not

2 materially differ from the U.S. trademark owner’s product.” Id. at 1093; see also Iberia Foods

3 Corp. v. Romeo, 150 F.3d 298, 303 (3d Cir. 1998) (explaining that where goods are marketed

4 under “identical marks but are materially different . . . the alleged infringer’s goods are considered

5 ‘non-genuine’ and the sale of the goods constitutes infringement” (citation modified)); Societe Des

6 Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F.2d 633, 638 (1st Cir. 1992) (“[A]n unauthorized

7 importation may well turn an otherwise ‘genuine’ product into a ‘counterfeit’ one. In other words,

8 the unauthorized importation and sale of materially different merchandise violates Lanham Trade–

9 Mark Act section 32 because a difference in products bearing the same name confuses consumers

10 and impinges on the local trademark holder’s goodwill.”). “[T]he threshold for determining a

11 material difference is low,” and “[t]he key question is whether a consumer is likely to consider a

12 difference relevant when purchasing a product.” Hokto Kinoko Co., 738 F.3d at 1093.

13 Consequently, to determine whether Punjab’s products are genuine, the Court considers whether

14 they “materially differ” from Haldiram’s products. Id. at 1094.

15 Haldiram contends that Punjab’s “‘grey market goods’ differ from Haldiram U.S. Products

16 in a number of material respects,” including in their packaging, labelling, product composition and

17 formulation, and customer service procedure. Dkt. No. 11 at 11–15. Haldiram has provided

18 evidence that Punjab is distributing the Indian Kaju Mixture in the United States. See Dkt. No. 11-

19 4 at 3, 23, 25–27. The U.S. and Indian versions of Haldiram’s Kaju Mixture contain different

20 percentages of cashews and different ingredients. Dkt. No. 11-5 at 3. Such differences in

21 formulation can be material, particularly where, as here, Haldiram notes that its U.S.-bound

22 products are “formulated to match United States consumer tastes and shelf-life expectations for

23 imported products[.]” Dkt. No. 11-5 at 2. In addition, the U.S.-bound and Indian versions of the

24 products direct customers to different customer service entities, and only the one that is designated

1 for Haldiram’s U.S. products “can properly address concerns that consumers raise about

2 Haldiram’s products that have been exported into the United States.” Dkt. No. 11-5 at 3–4; see

3 also Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1027 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

4 (finding that “customer support information on [Hokto Japan’s] packaging uniquely designed for

5 the Japanese market” was materially different from the goods for the U.S. market that “lists a

6 California-based website” from which customer service information was “readily available”),

7 aff’d, 738 F.3d 1085; Nestle USA, Inc. v. Best Foods LLC, 562 F. Supp. 3d 626, 631 (C.D. Cal.

8 2021) (finding material that the two sets of products “list different websites for customer service

9 related to the products”). These differences render the Indian products materially different and thus

10 not genuine.1

11 Because Punjab’s products are not “genuine,” Punjab is not exempt from potential liability

12 for trademark infringement, and the Court must next determine if Haldiram has shown a likelihood

13 of customer confusion. Hokto Kinoko Co., 738 F.3d at 1095. On this point, Haldiram argues that

14 Punjab’s use of its marks “will confuse United States consumers, who expect the products bearing

15 these marks to be the same as the products normally sold in the United States under the

16 HALIDRAM’S Marks.” Dkt. No. 11 at 11.

17 To evaluate the likelihood of customer confusion, the Court considers “the long-established

18 factors set forth in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348–54 (9th Cir. 1979).” Hokto

19 Kinoko Co., 738 F.3d at 1095. The Sleekcraft factors include (1) the “similarity of the marks”;

20 (2) the “strength of the mark” that has allegedly been infringed; (3) “evidence of actual confusion”;

21 (4) the relatedness or “proximity” of the goods; (5) the “normal marketing channels” used by both

22

1 At this point, the Court does not reach whether Punjab’s addition of the nutrition stickers renders the imported Indian

23 products not genuine because the other differences are sufficient to show the lack of genuineness. Further, Haldiram

has not addressed the fact that the stickers appear compliant with FDA regulations or whether consumers would

24 consider how FDA-compliant nutrition information appears on the package—whether on the original packaging or on

an affixed sticker—to be material.

1 parties; (6) the “type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser”;

2 (7) the alleged infringer’s “intent in selecting the mark”; and (8) evidence that “either party may

3 expand his business to compete with the other.” Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d at 348–54. Courts apply

4 these factors “flexibly,” and a plaintiff “need not demonstrate that every factor weighs in its favor.”

5 Hokto Kinoko Co., 738 F.3d at 1096. “[T]he importation of goods properly trademarked abroad

6 but not intended for sale locally may confuse consumers and may well threaten the local mark

7 owner’s goodwill.” Societe Des Produits Nestle, 982 F.2d at 636–37. Although Haldiram did not

8 directly address these factors, it has provided enough information in its filings for the Court to

9 evaluate them.

10 The first factor, the similarity of the marks, “weighs unequivocally in favor of a finding of

11 consumer confusion because the marks are identical.” Hokto Kinoko Co., 738 F.3d at 1096. The

12 second factor also weighs in Haldiram’s favor because its marks are strong; that is, its marks are

13 unique and not “suggestive” or “descriptive” of the products to which they relate. See Brookfield

14 Commc’ns v. W. Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1058 (9th Cir. 1999) (contrasting “fanciful” or

15 “arbitrary” marks with “suggestive” marks, “descriptive” marks, and other types of less distinctive

16 marks).2 Although Haldiram has not presented any evidence as to the third factor, actual consumer

17 confusion, the Ninth Circuit has “specifically recognized that likelihood of confusion may be

18 established absent such evidence.” Hokto Kinoko Co., 738 F.3d at 1096. The fourth factor, the

19 relatedness of the goods, weighs heavily in Haldiram’s favor because Punjab is selling Haldiram’s

20 own gray market products. See Dkt. No. 11-5 at 2–4. The fifth factor—the parties’ normal

21 marketing channels—also weighs in Haldiram’s favor because Haldiram’s products and Punjab’s

22 gray-market Haldiram products are both sold through retail channels in Washington. See Dkt. No.

23

2 The Court further notes that the USPTO trademark information for Registration Numbers 2,766,286 and 2,357,883

24 specifies that “HR HALDIRAM” is not the name of a living individual.

1 11-4 at 2–4 (explaining that Reshmi’s distributes and sells Haldiram’s products through both retail

2 and wholesale channels in Washington and other Western states, and its employees observed

3 Punjab’s gray-market Haldiram products for sale at three retail locations in Washington). The sixth

4 factor, the type of goods and the degree of care purchasers are likely to exercise, also weighs in

5 Haldiram’s favor. Consumers are expected to be “more discerning” and “less easily confused”

6 when purchasing expensive goods. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1060. But snack foods are low cost

7 consumer goods, so “reasonably prudent purchasers are unlikely to carefully examine [their]

8 packaging before each purchase.” Hokto Kinoko Co., 738 F.3d at 1096. “The seventh factor is the

9 alleged infringer’s intent in adopting the marks.” Id. “[C]ourts will presume an intent to deceive

10 the public” when an alleged infringer “knowingly adopts a mark identical or similar to another’s

11 mark[.]” Id. (citation modified). Here, Punjab sold and continues to sell Haldiram’s Indian

12 products that display Haldiram’s Marks without authorization. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 11-4 at 2–4. The

13 presumption of intent is bolstered by the fact that Punjab affixed stickers over the labels indicating

14 “not for export” and over the foreign non-FDA-compliant nutrition information. See id. Punjab

15 “has produced no evidence to negate the presumption that it intended to confuse consumers.”

16 Hokto Kinoko Co., 738 F.3d at 1096. The final factor—“whether either party is likely to expand

17 its product lines so as to compete directly with the product sold under the allegedly infringing

18 mark,” id. at 1096–97—is neutral because there is no evidence in the record that addresses it. On

19 balance, the Sleekcraft factors weigh heavily in Haldiram’s favor. Accordingly, the Court finds

20 that Punjab’s products are likely to confuse consumers, and Haldiram has shown a likelihood of

21 success on its trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.

22 2. Irreparable Harm

23 Haldiram argues that it “has already suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm

24 without the injunctive relief it seeks.” Dkt. No. 11 at 15. In support, it contends that “[i]rreparable

1 harm is presumed upon a showing of likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. It also argues that

2 “injury to a business’[s] reputation or goodwill is presumed to be irreparable due to the difficulty

3 in calculating such harm.” Id.

4 Effective December 27, 2020, the Trademark Modernization Act modified 15 U.S.C.

5 § 1116, which relates to injunctive relief in trademark actions. Pub. L. 116-260, § 226, 134 Stat.

6 2208 (2020); see also Vital Pharms. v. PHD Mktg., No. CV 20-6745-RSWL-JCx, 2021 WL

7 6881866, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021). The statute now includes the following provision: “A

8 plaintiff seeking any such injunction” to prevent a trademark violation “shall be entitled to a

9 rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm . . . upon a finding of likelihood of success on the

10 merits for a violation identified in this subsection in the case of a motion for a preliminary

11 injunction[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). Punjab has not responded to this motion or provided any

12 evidence to rebut the presumption.

13 Further, Haldiram has provided specific evidence to show a likelihood of irreparable harm.

14 Its General Manager-Export states that Punjab’s actions have “damaged the inherent value of the

15 HALDIRAM’S Marks and the goodwill associated with the brand, . . . negatively affected

16 Haldiram’s relationships with current customers and its ability to attract new customers,” and

17 harmed its brand by leading “customers intending to purchase Haldiram’s United States products,

18 [to] mistakenly purchase materially different products only intended for the India market.” Dkt.

19 No. 11-5 at 4–5. The Court finds that the harm to Haldiram’s brand and customer relationships is

20 irreparable because the “loss of . . . goodwill[] and reputation cannot be satisfactorily quantified

21 and, thus, the trademark owner cannot adequately be compensated.” Societe Des Produits Nestle,

22 982 F.2d at 640; see also Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. v. LifeWatch, Inc., 601 F. App'x

23 469, 474 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that harm to “reputation and goodwill . . . constitutes irreparable

24

1 harm, as it is not readily compensable”). Haldiram has thus shown that it is likely to suffer

2 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.

3 3. The Balance of Equities

4 Haldiram argues that the balance of hardships tips “strongly” in its favor because

5 (1) Punjab has “no legal right to sell materially different goods,” (2) “the harm to Haldiram if the

6 Court denies the requested relief far outweighs any harm to Defendant if the Court issues the

7 requested relief,” and (3) “[e]very sale of an unauthorized Haldiram India Product diminishes the

8 value of the HALDIRAM’S Marks, causing harm to the company’s reputation and deceiving

9 consumers.” Dkt. No. 11 at 15–16. It contends that, “[i]n contrast, the requested relief will not

10 prevent Defendant[] from taking any lawful action, including continuing to operate a legitimate

11 business.” Id. at 16. Defendant “would only be prevented from distributing Haldiram India

12 Products and unfairly competing with Haldiram.” Id. The Court agrees with Haldiram that the

13 balance of equities weighs in its favor because Punjab has no right to sell Haldiram’s goods, see

14 Dkt. No. 11-5 at 4, so prohibiting it from doing so does not diminish its rights. Moreover, without

15 an injunction, Punjab “would be more likely to continue violating [Haldiram’s trademark] rights,

16 imposing a hardship on [Haldiram].” Hokto Kinoko Co., 810 F. Supp. 2d at 1033. Accordingly,

17 the balance of equities weighs in Haldiram’s favor.

18 4. The Public Interest

19 Haldiram argues that granting a preliminary injunction is in the public interest because

20 “[a]n injunction against Defendant’s unauthorized conduct promotes the public interest by

21 eliminating the risk of consumer confusion and stemming the flow of unlawful and unauthorized

22 products.” Dkt. No. 11 at 16. It further contends that “[i]ndeed, ‘[t]he basic policy behind the

23 Lanham Act is to protect customers against likelihood of confusion.’” Id. (quoting Coca-Cola Co.

24 v. Overland, Inc., 692 F.2d 1250, 1256 (9th Cir. 1982)).

] The Court agrees with Haldiram that a preliminary injunction benefits the public because

2 will prevent Punjab from selling Haldiram’s Indian products in the U.S., even though those

3 || products are meant for sale only in India, see Dkt. No. 11-5 at 2, and thus will “prevent[] likelihood

4 || of confusion to consumers,” Hokto Kinoko Co., 810 F. Supp. 2d at 1033. The Court thus finds that

5 |} all four factors weigh in favor of granting a preliminary injunction.

6 5. The Scope of the Injunction

7 Haldiram seeks an injunction as follows:

8 a. “enjoining and restraining Defendant from acquiring, importing, distributing,

selling, offering for sale, advertising, or promoting, or being involved in the importation,

9 distribution, sale, offering for sale, advertisement, or promotion of, in the United States, of

tala

10 any products bearing the HALDIRAM’S, and faldrams trademarks

(“HALDIRAM’S Marks’) in the United States that are not authorized for sale in the United

11 States market, including, but not limited to, the products Haldiram manufactures for sale

in India,” Dkt. No. 11-1 at 2;

b. “enjoin[ing] and restrain[ing Punjab] from directly or indirectly using the

13 HALDIRAM’S Marks or any other trademark that is confusingly similar to the

HALDIRAM’S Marks in connection with its business,” id.; and

14 c. enjoming and restraining Punjab from “[a]ssisting, aiding or abetting any other

15 person or business entity in engaging in or performing any of the activities referred to in

subparagraphs (a) through (b) above,” id.

16 “[A]n injunction must be narrowly tailored to . . . remedy only the specific harms shown

17 Il by the laintiffs, rather than to enjoin all possible breaches of the law.” Price v. City of Stockton,

y tne p i Pp iy

18 390 F.3d 1105 , 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition, an injunction must not be vague because the Rule

19 |! 65 notice standard requires that “those against whom an injunction is issued should receive fair

20 and precisely drawn notice of what the injunction actually prohibits.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc.

21 Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 444 (1974) (explaining that injunctions must be precise

22 |! because “serious penalties can befall those who are found to be in contempt of court injunctions”).

23 Haldiram’s proposed order seeks to enjoin Punjab not just from using its marks but from

24 using “‘any other trademark that is confusingly similar to the HALDIRAM’S Marks” in connection

1 with its business. Dkt. No. 11-1 at 2. This “confusingly similar” portion of the requested injunction

2 is “overbroad and vague, as it does not provide a clear standard by which Defendant or third parties

3 could determine what conduct is prohibited.” Astral IP Enter. Ltd. v. OHealthApps Studio, No.

4 2:23-cv-00607-MCS-JPR, 2023 WL 5498881, at *6 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2023). Haldiram’s

5 proposed order also seeks to prohibit Punjab from using its marks on any product not authorized

6 for sale in the United States, “including, but not limited to, the products Haldiram manufactures

7 for sale in India.” Dkt. No. 11-1 at 2 (emphasis added). Haldiram’s preliminary injunction motion

8 does not complain that Punjab is using Haldiram’s Marks on such other products, and Court has

9 not analyzed whether Haldiram’s gray market goods outside of those manufactured in India would

10 qualify as “genuine” if sold in the United States. This provision is therefore overbroad. However,

11 the remainder of the requested injunction is narrowly tailored to prevent Punjab from continuing

12 to infringe Haldiram’s trademarks. See id. The Court thus grants the preliminary injunction with

13 the exception of the overbroad requested relief discussed above.

14 6. No Bond is Required

15 Haldiram argues that no bond should be required because there is “there is no realistic

16 likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoining his or her conduct.” Dkt. No. 11 at 17 (quoting

17 Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003)). It further contends that Punjab “is

18 distributing unauthorized food products that are not in compliance with FDA regulation and are

19 materially different than authorized, genuine Haldiram U.S. Products.” Id. Therefore, Punjab “will

20 not incur any lawful damages as the result of the injunction.” Id. And “[e]ven if the Court were to

21 later find that the injunction was wrongly entered,” Haldiram contends that Punjab “would be able

22 to sell the Haldiram India Products” at that time. Id.

23 Courts “may issue a preliminary injunction . . . only if the movant gives security in an

24 amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found

1 || to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Despite the seemingly

2 || mandatory language of the rule, it “invests the district court with discretion as to the amount of

3 || security required, ifany.” Jorgensen, 320 F.3d at 919 (citation modified). Punjab has not requested

4 || security in response to this motion. See, e.g. Walsh v. Zazzali, No. SACV-15-1970 JVS (JCGx),

5 WL 7647556, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) (declining to require a bond when the defendant

6 not request one). Moreover, Punjab has not argued that it will suffer damages from an

7 || injunction, and it does not appear that it will be damaged when it has no right to sell Haldiram’s

8 || products in the first place. See, e.g., Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009)

9 || (“The district court may dispense with the filing of a bond when it concludes there is no realistic

10 || likelihood of harm to the defendant from enjoiming his or her conduct.” (citation modified)).

11 || Accordingly, the Court does not require Haldiram to post a bond.

12 Ii. CONCLUSION

13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

14 || Haldiram’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. No. 11. The Court ORDERS that Defendant

15 || Punjab Trading, Inc. is enjoined and restrained from:

16 1. acquiring, importing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or

promoting, or being involved in the importation, distribution, sale, offering for sale,

17 advertisement, or promotion in the United States of any products manufactured for

sale in India and bearing any of the below-listed trademarks (the “Haldiram’s

18 Marks”) that are not authorized for sale in the United States market;

Reg. No. 2 2

20 a eg. No. 2,766,286

21 Cee

22

Pi Reg. No. 2,357,883

23 0 ns

□□ elie)

24

Haldiramis

3

4

2. directly or indirectly using the Haldiram’s Marks in connection with its business;

° 3. assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or business entity in engaging in or

6 performing any of the activities referred to in the two paragraphs above.

7 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), this Order is binding on those persons

g who receive actual notice of this Order, if those persons are an officer, agent, servant, employee,

g |] or attorney of Punjab Trading, Inc. or if they are acting in active concert or participation with

10 Punjab Trading, Inc.

11 Haldiram is ordered to serve a copy of this Order on Punjab Trading, Inc. in the manner

described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. This Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect

13 until final judgment in this action or further order of the Court.

14 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.

Loyer\ier

16 Lauren King

United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24