FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BBU, INC., a Delaware corporation; et al., No. 09-56493
Plaintiffs - Appellees, D.C. No. 3:09-CV-01787-DMS-
RBB
v.
SARA LEE CORPORATION, a Maryland MEMORANDUM *
corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
**
Submitted December 15, 2009
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This appeal from the district court's order granting appellees’ motion for a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jlf/Inventory
preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
We express no view on the merits of the complaint. See Sports Form, Inc. v.
United Press Intern., Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982). Our sole inquiry
is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunction
relief. See Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009). Obtaining a
preliminary injunction "requires a party to demonstrate 'that he is likely to succeed
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.'" Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 978
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct.
365, 374 (2008)). Here, the district court correctly identified the legal standards
for likelihood of confusion of a trademark. See AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599
F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 1979). We conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in concluding that appellees met the requirements needed to merit
preliminary injunction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order
granting the preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
jlf/Inventory 2 09-56493