Another IP plaintiff fails to show irreparable harm (false advertising/trade secret)

Impax Media Inc. v. Northeast Advertising Corp., No. 17 Civ.
8272, 2018 WL 358284 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2018)
Impax, which provides digital video screens that show ads
(mostly in supermarkets), sought to enjoin defendants (AdCorp) from competing
with Impax by installing or contracting to install new digital signage
platforms at supermarket checkout counters during the term of the parties’
Commission Sales Agreement in the northeastern United States and Washington D.C.
AdCorp pays supermarkets and other venues to permit the installation of digital
and print advertising platforms.  
Impax initially talked to AdCorp about providing services in
the northeast, especially for introductions to supermarkets with which AdCorp
had relationships, including Wakefern, a large grocery store cooperative.  AdCorp told Impax that AdCorp would pitch
Wakefern on Impax, but then Wakefern terminated its discussions with Impax, and
Impax learned that Wakefern had entered into an agreement to have AdCorp
install AdCorp’s own digital signage. AdCorp then told Impax that it would
limit digital media screen sales going forward, focus on print advertising, and
would continue to serve as Impax’s exclusive agent for the sale of local
advertising.   The parties then executed
a Commission Sales Agreement granting AdCorp an exclusive right to sell ads on
Impax’s behalf in the relevant territory for 3 years.  AdCorp promised to use its best efforts to
sell ads, in return for a commission. 
The agreement also covered Impax’s trade secrets.  Before the agreement was signed, the phrase
that Adcorp “may not sell Advertising under his own or any other name” was
removed, and a statement that AdCorp was “mandated” to sell 15-second ads was
changed to “allowed.” An addendum allowed Impax to sell local ads in the territory.  In 2017, Impax began to develop a
relationship with Foodtown, a large supermarket cooperative, then found that Foodtown
had decided to install AdCorp digital screens at its checkout counters.
Impax sued for false advertising and related claims.  The court addressed only the issue of
irreparable harm, finding it wanting. Impax argued that it “faces the very real
possibility of losing the benefit of two years of hard work developing its
product and its market opportunity and being driven out of this market altogether.”
 Impax argued that it had identified “strategic
gaps and opportunities in the U.S. market for digital signage and advertising
at supermarkets,” and AdCorp’s alleged misappropriation of its information
would keep it from effectively marketing its own platform, losing out on
incalculable future profits.
However, Impax didn’t show evidence of potential clients
with whom Impax was currently contracted, in talks with, or even planning to
negotiate, and the sum of whose potential business revenue was incalculable. Impax’s
claim was “even more speculative because of [its] own admission that its
digital platform program is in its ‘infancy.’” It was speculative to claim, without
more evidence, that Impax would have to drop out of the market.  The misappropriation also didn’t threaten
irreparable harm because AdCorp wasn’t threatening to disseminate Impax’s trade secrets, only to use them; no presumption of irreparable harm was warranted because “damages
will often provide a complete remedy for such an injury.”

Industria de
Alimentos Zenú 

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s