The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-17657•OG INTERNATIONAL, LTD. and O- GAMES, USA v. UBISOFT, INC. and UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT S.A.
11-17657Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 22, 2012
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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OG INTERNATIONAL, LTD. and O-
GAMES, USA,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
UBISOFT, INC. and UBISOFT
ENTERTAINMENT S.A.,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 11-17657
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-04980-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
This appeal from the district court's order denying appellants’ motion for a
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 Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752–53 (9th Cir. 1982). Our sole inquiry is
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive
relief. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.
Ed.2d 249 (2008). Here, the district court correctly identified the legal standards
for copyright and trade dress infringement. See Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
616 F.3d 904, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2010); Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc.,
251 F.3d 1252, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001); 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 appellants failed to meet the requirements to merit preliminary injunctive
relief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of appellants' motion for a
preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.