Polaris Pool Systems, Inc. v. Letro Products, Inc.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Plaintiff Polaris Pool Systems, Inc.’s (“Polaris”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction came before this Court for review on November 27, 1995. After careful consideration, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs motion.

BACKGROUND

Polaris’ previous motion for preliminary injunction from this Court was denied on February 3, 1995. Although the Court held that Polaris’ trade dress was “non-functional” and had acquired “secondary meaning,” the Court held Polaris was not entitled to relief because Polaris could not prove a likelihood of confusion. The Court’s decision was based in part on the fact that the Polaris Model 180, the only model which looked similar to Letro Products, Inc.’s (“Letro”) “Legend,” was no longer on the market.

In addition, the Court held that other factors militated in favor of Defendant including: the absence of proof that Letro intended to confuse customers; the clear labelling of Defendant’s product as its own; differences in the color and shape of Polaris’ Model 180 and the Letro “Legend”; the high degree of care consumers would likely exercise in buying the pool cleaner; and the…