Group claims trademark rights in NYC PRIDE, sues competing promoters for using the phrase during NYC’s “Pride Month.” Plaintiff’s complaint and moving papers at this link. Defendants’ response here:
UPDATE: Plaintiff’s reply submission of June 16th at this link. Hearing is Wednesday, June 18th at 10:30 at the SDNY.
UPDATE: This injunction issued on June 19th. “NYC Pride,” the court held, is a trademark of one organization (i.e., plaintiff). Those interested in how the court reached this conclusion may seek the answer in the first day’s transcript. There was a second day of hearings on June 19th; here’s that transcript.
The preliminary injunction was handed down late afternoon Thursday, June 17, 2014. As of 12:45 on Friday, June 18th, only the preliminary injunction has issued
; there is as of yet no opinion of the court.
UPDATE AGAIN: The court replaced the original injunction with this amended injunction. The previous one required the use of disclaimers that displayed two disputed logos, which did not appear consistent with its purpose. The parties stipulated to the changes reflected in the new injunction.
IT’S HERE: The court’s 38-page opinion is here. Money quote:
There are, therefore, reasons to conclude that Heritage’s marks are not exclusive, and at least one reason to conclude that they are. The other factors, however, tilt more decisively in Heritage’s favor. On balance, I conclude that Heritage has demonstrated a likelihood—not, perhaps, an overwhelming likelihood, but a likelihood—of success in establishing that its marks carry secondary meaning. And that is all it must do at this juncture: “make a showing that the probability of his prevailing is better than fifty percent.” Abdul Wali v. Coughlin, 754 F.2d 1015, 1025 (2d Cir. 1985).
UPDATE AFTER JULY 7th: Matinee’s Answer and Counterclaims.