## Facts

- Ocean Garden, Inc. (OGP) marketed canned fish and seafood products, including Mexican abalone, under the “Calmex” brand name and related “Wheel Brand” label designs featuring a ship’s wheel and other recurring graphic elements.
- Marktrade Company, Inc. and Alberto J. Soler (collectively, Marktrade) marketed similar seafood products under the brand names “Sardimex” and “Seamex,” and distributed “Rey Del Mar” canned abalone for export to the Far East.
- OGP alleged that Marktrade’s packaging and label presentation for abalone closely resembled OGP’s protected marks and overall label appearance, creating a likelihood that purchasers would believe Marktrade’s products were associated with, sponsored by, or sourced from OGP.
- On May 14, 1990, OGP filed suit in the Central District of California asserting Lanham Act trademark claims and related state-law theories (including unfair competition and business tort claims), and seeking injunctive relief.
- No parallel infringement proceedings were pending in other countries concerning the same dispute.
- On November 14, 1990, OGP moved for a preliminary injunction. On December 17, 1990, the district court granted the motion in part and entered an order prohibiting Marktrade from “imitating, copying or making any unauthorized use” of specified OGP trademarks and trade dress.
- The injunction covered, among other things: (1) use of “Calmex”; (2) “Wheel Brand Ship’s Wheel superimposed over a map of Baja California”; (3) “Wheel Brand Ship’s Wheel superimposed over Chinese characters”; and (4) “any use of the Ship’s Wheel” together with a pink background label and blue accent bands on “Rey Del Mar” abalone cans.
- Marktrade filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act and related claims based on the alleged imitation of OGP’s trademarks and abalone label trade dress.
2. Whether Marktrade’s arguments about the foreign-oriented aspects of its marketing and distribution required reversal of the injunction.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the order granting the preliminary injunction.
- The court held that a preliminary injunction order will stand unless the district court applied the wrong law, relied on clearly erroneous factfinding, or otherwise abused its discretion.
- The court concluded that the district court used the proper preliminary-injunction framework for trademark and trade dress claims and that the record supported the district court’s findings of likely confusion based on the similarity of the marks and overall label appearance.
- The court rejected Marktrade’s attempt to overturn the injunction based on the export-focused nature of some sales, finding no basis to disturb the district court’s exercise of authority on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion; reversal requires an incorrect legal standard, clearly erroneous factual findings, or a result outside the permissible range of choices.
- Clear error is a demanding standard; an appellate court does not reweigh evidence and will not overturn supported findings simply because it might have viewed the record differently.
- In the Ninth Circuit, preliminary injunctive relief may be granted when the movant shows (a) a likelihood of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable injury, or (b) serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply in the movant’s favor.
- Trade dress may be protected when the overall packaging or label appearance serves a source-identifying function and is not purely functional; a close imitation that is likely to confuse buyers can be enjoined.
- In trademark and trade dress disputes, a supported showing of likely consumer confusion and threatened loss of goodwill can justify interim relief to prevent continued marketplace harm while the case proceeds.

## Conclusion

Ocean Garden involved an appeal from a preliminary injunction entered to stop Marktrade from using OGP’s Calmex and Wheel Brand identifiers and from adopting abalone label designs that the district court found confusingly similar. Applying deferential review, the Ninth Circuit affirmed because the district court applied the correct preliminary-injunction standard, made supported findings regarding similarity and likely confusion, and crafted injunctive terms aimed at preventing unauthorized use of OGP’s marks and protected label combinations.


Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Company, Inc., 953 F.2d 500 (1991)