Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Ciba-Geigy Corporation v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.

719 F.2d 56

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1983-10-14
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • affirming the district court’s “thoughtful and detailed” decision granting a preliminary injunction where the plaintiff had demonstrated a “likelihood of ultimate success as to at least one of the [counts—either the Lanham-Act count or the State unfaircompetition counts]”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ciba-Geigy Corporation v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
17 opinions
Distinguished
1 times
CIBA-GEIGY CORP. v. BOLAR PHARMACEUTICAL CO.,719 F.2d 56(3rd Cir. 1983)
CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. BOLAR PHARMACEUTICAL CO., INC.,
APPELLANT.
No. 82-5797.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued June 16, 1983.
Decided October 14, 1983.
Certiorari Denied March 4, 1984.
Robert B. Jones (argued), James J. Myrick, Timothy E. Levstik, Fitch, Even, Tabin Flannery, Chicago, Ill., James F. Keegan, Bendit, Weinstock Sharbaugh, P.A., West Orange, N.J., Frederick L. Whitmer, Pitney, Hardin, Kipp Szuch, Morristown, N.J., Randolph S. Sherman (argued), Richard A. DeSevo, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, New York City, for appellee.Page 57

John C. Dorfman, Dann, Dorfman, Herrell Skillman, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Milton A. Bass, Jacob Laufer, Steven R. Trost, Bass, Ullman Lustigman, New York City, for the Nat. Ass'n of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, amicus curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Before HUNTER and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and GILES,fn*District Judge.
[1]OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM
[2] CIBA-GEIGY Corporation ("Ciba") initiated this action on March 12, 1982, alleging that Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. ("Bolar") had violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act,15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1976) and two independent torts under New Jersey Law, "unprivileged imitation" and "passing off," by copying the trade dress of Ciba's APRESAZIDE products.

[3] Following a lengthy hearing, the district court, 547 F. Supp. 1095, relying primarily onSK F Co. v. Premo PharmaceuticalLaboratories, Inc.,625 F.2d 1055(3d Cir. 1980), granted preliminary injunctive relief. The injunctive relief prevented Bolar from "using any simulation, imitation or substantial duplication of [Ciba's] distinctive trade dress . . . in connection with . . . [Bolar's] hydralazine hydrochloride/hydrochlorothiazide products for the treatment of hypertension." IV Appendix (App.) 727. The district court based its grant of injunctive relief on its belief (1) that Ciba "demonstrate[d] a likelihood of ultimate success as to at least one of the [counts — either the Lanham-Act count or the State unfair-competition counts]; (2) that Ciba "is threatened with irreparable injury absent such relief;" and (3) "that the balance of equities and the public interest favor such relief." IV App. at 709. Appellant Bolar argues that the district court abused its discretion and made various errors in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. But, we find no merit to appellant's arguments seeking to overturn the grant of a preliminary injunction.

[4] The narrow scope of review of a district court's grant of an application for preliminary injunctive relief permits us to dissolve an injunction only if
the trial court abuses [its] discretion, commits an obvious error in applying the law, or makes a serious mistake in considering the proof . . . .


[5]SK F, Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc.,625 F.2d at 1066,quoting A.O. Smith Corp. v. FTC,530 F.2d 515, 525 (3d Cir. 1976). SeeScooper Dooper, Inc. v. Kraftco Corp.,460 F.2d 1204(3d Cir. 1972). Thus, an appellant who is attempting to overturn a district court order granting (or denying) a preliminary injunction carries a heavy burden.SK F Co. v.Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc.,625 F.2d at 1066;See,Oburn v. Shapp,521 F.2d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 1975);ScooperDooper, Inc. v. Kraftco Corp.,460 F.2d at 1205.

[6] After reviewing the record, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and Judge Sarokin's thoughtful and detailed opinion, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion, commit an obvious error in applying the law,1or make a serious mistake in considering the proof.

[7] Accordingly, we will affirm the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction.Page 624
  1. Honorable James T. Giles, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ↩
  2. Appellant also argues that the district court erred in failing to readInwood Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. IvesLaboratories, Inc.,("Ives"),456 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 2290, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982), as overruling the reasonable anticipation standard inSK F Co. v. Premo PharmaceuticalLaboratories, Inc.,625 F.2d 1055(3d Cir. 1980) for the tort of "passing off" under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. However, we need not address this issue because the district court's conclusions regarding the New Jersey state law claims of "passing off" and "unprivileged imitation" are mandated bySKFand provide a sufficient independent basis for affirming the district court's grant of preliminary injunctive relief. ↩