Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. J-B Weld Co., 3:19-cv-01434 (JAM)

Decision Date12 December 2019
Docket NumberNo. 3:19-cv-01434 (JAM),3:19-cv-01434 (JAM)
Citation419 F.Supp.3d 382
Parties ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., Plaintiff, v. J-B WELD COMPANY, LLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

Bradley L. Cohn, Ashly Boesche, Jacquelyn Prom, Jessica Ekhoff, Pattishall, McAuliffe et al., Chicago, IL, Timothy Andrew Diemand, Wiggin & Dana, Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff.

Ashley Summer, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, New York, NY, Kevin P. Polansky, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Boston, MA, Neil C. Jones, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Greenville, SC, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Jeffrey Alker Meyer, United States District Judge

This case arises at an uncommon intersection between the repair of car mufflers and principles of intellectual property law. For several decades now, plaintiff Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW) has trademarked the term "MUFFLER WELD" for a product it sells to seal cracks on car mufflers. But last year J-B Weld Company, LLC (J-B Weld) began to sell its own formulation of a muffler sealant using the mark "MufflerWeld." In light of the similarity of these terms, ITW has now moved for a preliminary injunction to bar J-B Weld from continuing to market its product under the "MufflerWeld" name during the pendency of this litigation.

ITW argues that it is likely to succeed on its trademark infringement claim and that it is being irreparably harmed. In response, J-B Weld argues that the difference in trade dress (packaging) between its product and ITW's product defeats any claim of trademark infringement, and that ITW has not shown irreparable injury in any event. For the reasons described below, I will grant ITW's motion for a preliminary injunction.

BACKGROUND

The facts relevant to this motion for a preliminary injunction are largely uncontested. ITW has, since 1976, sold a sealant for automotive exhaust systems under the name "MUFFLER WELD." Doc. #4-2 at 1 (¶ 3) ("Agrafojo Decl."). In 1977, the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered a trademark for MUFFLER WELD on the Principal Register, "for paste sealer for repairing muffler holes," noting that the application disclaimed the word "muffler" aside from the mark as shown. MUFFLER WELD, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,064,459 (Apr. 26, 1977), reproduced in Agrafojo Decl. at 4. ITW owns this trademark. Ibid. An ITW marketing executive, Frank Agrafojo, declares in an affidavit that "MUFFLER WELD sealants are strong sellers for ITW, with annual gross sales in the hundreds of thousands of dollars." Agrafojo Decl. at 2 (¶ 6). For ease of reference, I will call ITW's product, separate and apart from its branding, the "ITW muffler sealant."

J-B Weld sells high-strength adhesives, most notably the product that gave the company its name, "J-B Weld," a "two-part, epoxy, ‘cold weld’ bonding adhesive," Doc. #14-1 at 2 (¶ 4) ("Hanson Decl."), essentially a very strong glue with many different applications in industry, in the garage, or at home. Ibid. According to the affidavit of Carlton Hanson, the Chairman and CEO of J-B Weld Co. LLC, the original epoxy was a success after it debuted in the late 1960s, and the company it launched sought to diversify its product range in the decades thereafter. Id. at 3 (¶¶ 7-9). Many, but not all, of these successor products were branded with a modifier suggesting the product's usage concatenated with the word "Weld." Id. at 3 (¶ 8). For example, J-B Weld has sold products named RadiatorWeld, TankWeld, MarineWeld, and AutoWeld. Id. at 4 (illustrated examples).1

Trouble began in April 2018, when J-B Weld started selling a new form of sealant for mufflers, pipe joints, and exhaust systems called "MufflerWeld." For ease of reference, I will call this product the "J-B Weld muffler sealant." Inspection of the product—submitted with the consent of both parties to the Court to aid in deciding this motion—reveals that J-B Weld has asserted a common-law trademark over the term "MufflerWeld" by placing the TM symbol next to that term (distinguished from the ® denoting that "J-B Weld" is a registered mark).2 Neither party has directed the Court to any attempt by anyone to register "MufflerWeld," as opposed to "MUFFLER WELD," with the Patent and Trademark Office.

In August 2019, ITW learned that J-B Weld had started selling the J-B Weld muffler sealant using the mark MufflerWeld and that the J-B Weld muffler sealant had been stocked at AutoZone, a national automotive supply store. Agrafojo Decl. at 2 (¶¶ 9-10). Early in 2019, AutoZone stopped selling ITW's competing muffler sealant; some months later, it began to stock J-B Weld muffler sealant. Ibid. This lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction followed in September 2019. Doc. #1.3

The parties have made no submissions about the similarity of the J-B Weld muffler sealant and the ITW muffler sealant at a chemical level, although the safety information contained on the packaging suggests there are some chemical differences between the products. More importantly, for present purposes, the parties do not dispute that both products do essentially the same thing (patch mufflers and other cracked but patchable car parts) by essentially the same method (creating chemical bonds that patch said cracks) at essentially the same price (around $5-$10) marketed to essentially the same people (so-called "DIYers" alongside some auto repair professionals and car manufacturers). Compare Agrafojo Decl. at 2 (¶¶ 7-13) with Hanson Decl. at 3,5 (¶¶ 7, 12).

The principal difference between the products is their packaging and the means by which they are dispensed. See Hanson Decl. at 6 (¶ 14) (reproduced below).

ITW's muffler sealant is dispensed from a small black tub (from which the product is designed to be scooped) and appears in the center of a flame motif with "MUFFLER WELD" in capital white letters at the top of the package, with "Exhaust System Repair" immediately below it, and "MUFFLER-CAST" in smaller black letters immediately above and to the right; VersaChem, the house brand under which ITW sells MUFFLER WELD, appears on the face of the tub itself and in a small logo on the top left. Ibid.

J-B Weld's muffler sealant is dispensed directly from a tube that one squeezes; the packaging's colors are alternating bands of red and white except at the top of the tube, which has a black band on which the J-B Weld logo is superimposed. Immediately beneath the J-B Weld logo is the mark "MufflerWeld;" immediately beneath "MufflerWeld" is the legend "Muffler Cement." Ibid.

At a teleconference held on November 1, 2019, the parties agreed that I would determine ITW's motion for a preliminary injunction based on the record presently before the Court, i.e. , on the basis of the parties' submissions to date. Doc. #40. See generally 11A Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2949 (3d. ed.) (evidentiary standards for preliminary injunction hearings).

DISCUSSION

A district court has the power to "grant injunctions, according to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent the violation of any right of the registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office." 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).

To receive a preliminary injunction, ITW must satisfy a four-part test. First, it must show "either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the [plaintiff]'s favor." Salinger v. Colting , 607 F.3d 68, 79 (2d Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). Second, it must show that it is "likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction." Id. at 80. Third, "a court must consider the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant and issue the injunction only if the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiff's favor." Ibid. "Finally, the court must ensure that the ‘public interest would not be disserved’ by the issuance of a preliminary injunction." Ibid. All in all, because a preliminary injunction "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, [it is] one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong , 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (cleaned up). Accord Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York , 409 F.3d 506, 510-11 (2d Cir. 2005).

Further, when a movant seeks, as ITW does here, a "mandatory preliminary injunction that alters the status quo by commanding some positive act," rather than a "prohibitory injunction seeking only to maintain the status quo," then the burden of proof on the movant is "even higher." Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc. , 638 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). A mandatory injunction "should issue only upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will result from a denial of preliminary relief." Ibid. A party seeking a mandatory injunction must make "a ‘clear’ or ‘substantial’ showing of a likelihood of success" on the merits, in addition to a showing of irreparable harm. Jolly v. Coughlin , 76 F.3d 468, 473 (2d Cir. 1996).

I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

ITW argues that J-B Weld's use of the "MufflerWeld" mark infringes on ITW's MUFFLER WELD mark, in violation of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1114. "A plaintiff's trademark is protected by federal law against infringement by use of colorable imitations of the mark that are ‘likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.’ " Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., Inc. , 73 F.3d 497, 502 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) ). "To prevail on a claim of certification mark infringement, ‘a plaintiff must show, first, that its mark merits protection, and, second, that the defendant's use of a similar mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.’ " Int'l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Sec....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. J-B Weld Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 26, 2020
    ...ITW was likely to prevail on its claim that J-B Weld's product infringed its trademark. See Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. J-B Weld Co., LLC , 419 F. Supp. 3d 382 (D. Conn. 2019) (" J-B Weld I "), as modified , 2019 WL 7816510 (" J-B Weld II ").In that decision, however, I reserved judgment on......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT