Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust
| Decision Date | 04 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 782,D,782 |
| Parties | CITIBANK, N.A. and Citicorp, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITYTRUST and Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. ocket 84-7959. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Armand Cifelli, Bridgeport, Conn. (Cifelli, Frederick & Tully, Bridgeport, Conn., Jerry J. Strochlic, Sage Gray Todd & Sims, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
Thomas P. Dowling, New York City (John F. Sweeney, Joseph A. Calvaruso, Dickerson M. Downing, Mitchell E. Radin, Morgan, Finnegan, Pine, Foley & Lee, New York City, Alfred F. Rohls, Assistant Vice President, of Citibank, N.A., New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before MANSFIELD, PRATT, and JOHN W. PECK of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation, Circuit Judges.
The issue before us is whether the district court properly granted preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants, Citytrust and Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., from
using the name "Citytrust" in identifying or referring to their recently established Long Island office, or to any other offices which they might establish in New York State in the future. 596 F.Supp. 369. Since the evidence before the district court was insufficient to establish that the plaintiffs, Citibank N.A. and Citicorp, would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction pending trial of the underlying trademark claims, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff Citibank, a national bank headquartered in New York State, was first chartered in 1812 as "City Bank of New York". It continued to use that name or variations thereof--including "The National City Bank of New York", "The First National City Bank of New York", and "First National City Bank"--through the adoption in 1976 of its current legal name, "Citibank, N.A.". Citibank currently does business in all fifty states and numerous foreign countries, and offers a full line of consumer and commercial banking services. It claims to be the largest bank in the world. Citibank has obtained federal and state registrations for the name, "Citibank", and for more than twenty additional names using the "Citi" prefix, such as "Citiquote", "Citicash", "Citibanker", "Citiphone", "Citipak", "Citilights", and "Citiwheels". Citibank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of plaintiff Citicorp, a bank holding company.
Citytrust, a small, localized banking association, is chartered under the laws of the state of Connecticut. It, too, provides a range of commercial and consumer banking services, although on a smaller scale than Citibank. First established in 1854 as "Bridgeport City Bank", Citytrust began using the words "City Trust" as part of its legal name in 1929 and continued that use through 1971. At that time, Citytrust became a national bank and operated under the name "City National Bank of Connecticut" until 1977. It claims to have continued to use the words "City Trust" to identify itself and its services while it was a national bank. When it reverted to state bank status in 1977, it adopted its current legal name, "Citytrust". Citytrust is a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., a bank holding company.
Citibank and Citytrust have engaged in a substantial amount of business with each other over the past four decades. The relationship began in 1940 when Citytrust established a correspondent banking account with Citibank. Among other things, Citytrust has sold Citibank traveler's checks and has engaged Citibank's consulting services to assist in the operation of Citytrust.
Until 1984, Citytrust offices were located only in Connecticut. In the July/August 1983 issue of Business Advance, a publication directed to business, financial, and industrial communities on Long Island, an article reported that Citytrust was "entering the Long Island market and making its expertise available to companies in this area." Citytrust's decision to establish a commercial lending office on Long Island was announced in the December 6, 1983 issue of Newsday, a Long Island newspaper of general circulation. The Long Island office opened in May 1984 in Melville, New York. In response to an inquiry by Citibank in late June 1984, a Citytrust official stated that the office had opened or was in the process of opening.
More than ten weeks later, plaintiffs filed the instant complaint alleging violations of Sec. 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1114 (); Sec. 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a) (); Sec. 368-b of the New York General Business Law (); Sec. 368-d of the New York General Business Law (); unfair competition and infringement of common law trademark rights. On these theories plaintiffs sought damages and a permanent injunction barring defendants from any use of the name "Citytrust" anywhere.
Plaintiffs then moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from using the name "Citytrust" in identifying or referring to the Melville office, or to any other offices subsequently established in New York State. They also sought an order prohibiting the defendants from increasing the type, frequency, or prominence of any media advertising in the state of New York above that existing prior to the opening of the Melville office.
After a hearing on October 22, 1984, the district court granted the requested preliminary relief. The court modified this order on November 7, 1984 by deleting the prohibition against defendants' media advertising, leaving intact the injunction against use of the name "Citytrust" in any manner whatsoever in identifying or referring to the Melville office or to any other offices which defendants now or in the future may establish in New York State.
On November 13, 1984, Citytrust filed a notice of appeal from the modified order and sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal. After denial of the requested stay by the district court, City Trust, on Dec. 11, 1984, requested that we stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. On December 18, 1984, we denied the motion for a stay and expedited this appeal.
To obtain a preliminary injunction in this circuit, the moving party has the burden of showing " '(a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.' " Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co. Corp., 719 F.2nd 42, 45 (2d Cir.1983) (quoting Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam)). On review after an evidentiary hearing, we must accept the district court's findings of fact unless they are "clearly erroneous", Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 855, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 2188, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)), and the ultimate question before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction, Coca-Cola Co. v. Tropicana Products, Inc., 690 F.2d 312, 315 (2d Cir.1982).
" 'Perhaps the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction is a demonstration that if it is not granted the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm before a decision on the merits can be rendered.' " Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co., 719 F.2d at 45 (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2948, at 431 (1973) (footnote omitted)). In the instant case, after an extensive analysis culminating in a determination that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, the district court set forth its sole consideration of irreparable harm in these words:
Having determined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits given the likelihood of confusion, irreparable harm "almost inevitably follows." Omega Importing Corp. v. Petri-Kine Camera Company, 451 F.2d 1190, 1195 (2d Cir.197.
Under the circumstances of this case, we think this perfunctory comment provided insufficient consideration to the factor of irreparable harm. The district court did not even make an explicit finding on the point. Even if we were to agree that plaintiffs' likelihood of success is as clear as the district court concluded, on this record plaintiffs still failed to establish the irreparable harm essential to entitle them to the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction.
Omega Importing, relied upon by the district court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Hiscox Ins. Co., 6:20-CV-06025 EAW
...35 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[A]n extensive delay belies the surety's claim that it will suffer irreparable injury."); Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust , 756 F.2d 273, 276-77 (2d Cir. 1985) ("[T]he failure to act sooner undercuts the sense of urgency that ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary r......
-
Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist.
...for such drastic, speedy action.’ " Lanin v. Borough of Tenafly , 515 Fed.Appx. 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust , 756 F.2d 273, 275 (2d Cir. 1985) ); see FMC Corp. v. Control Solutions, Inc. , 369 F.Supp.2d 539, 582 (E.D. Pa. 2005) ("An unreasonable delay in see......
-
Alabama v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce
...delay surely indicates "an absence of the kind of irreparable harm required to support a preliminary injunction." Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust , 756 F.2d 273, 276 (2d Cir. 1985).While the challenge to the procedure followed in adopting differential privacy under the APA (Count IV) is within ......
-
Million Youth March, Inc. v. Safir
...the Court must consider the impact, if any, of plaintiff's delay in seeking injunctive relief.32 The Second Circuit observed in Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust33 that "[p]reliminary injunctions generally are granted on the theory that there is an urgent need for speedy action to protect the pla......
-
Trademark Modernization Act and the Codification of the Presumption of Irreparable Harm
...of Scientology Int'l v. Elmira Mission of the Church of Scientology, 794 F.2d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 1986).62. See Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273, 277 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm when plaintiff delayed seeking injunctive relief and had......