Gil Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Advanced Generic Corp.
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
692 F. Supp. 2d 212 (2010)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In the Court of First Instance of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the state court), Gil Pharmaceutical Corp. (Gil) (plaintiff) sued Advanced Generic Corp. and other parties (collectively, Generic) (defendants) for violations of trademark law by selling generic pharmaceutical products under marks that were confusingly similar to Gil’s marks. Gil requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) pursuant to Puerto Rican trademark law. In an ex parte proceeding held on January 27, 2010, the state court granted the requested TRO against Generic, stopping use of certain names and trademarks, and scheduled a hearing seven days later for Generic to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. On February 2, 2010, prior to the scheduled hearing, Generic removed the case to federal court. In federal district court, Generic filed a motion to dissolve the TRO. The court ordered Gil to show cause why the TRO should not be dissolved by the motion-hearing date of March 1, 2010. Gil failed to timely make a showing of good cause for the TRO’s extension or to apply for a preliminary injunction. The court dissolved the ex parte TRO and referred the case to a magistrate judge to set a preliminary-injunction hearing. On March 5, 2010, Gil filed a motion for another TRO and for a preliminary injunction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Besosa, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.