Titaness Light Shop LLC  (“Titaness”) sought a declaratory judgment in the case of Titaness Light Shop LLC v Sunlight Supply, Inc.  and IP Holdings LLC (collectively “Sunlight”) respecting alleged trademark infringement.  Specifically, Titaness claimed its house mark usage of TITANESS, in association with the sale of its separately branded horticultural grow lights, did not infringe upon any valid trademark right of Sunlight pertaining to its TITAN CONTROLS trademark for electromechanical controllers and timers.  Upon Sunlight’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (responded to by Rocky and fellow WCSS attorney Tom Harkins) and subsequent oral argument by Rocky,  the District Court in Reno NV entered a preliminary injunction against Titaness enjoining its further usage of TITANESS.  Titaness’ request for a rehearing was denied.  Titaness appealed to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals while the preliminary injunctive order was stayed pending appeal. Rocky and Tom fully briefed and presented the issues.  Rocky argued Titaness’ position at the 9^th Circuit oral argument before a 3 judge panel held on September 8, 2014, in the 9^th Circuit’s San Francisco appellate courtroom.  In reversing the District Court’s granting of Sunlight’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the 9^th Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. The 9^th Circuit found that Sunlight failed to produce evidence to establish that there was a likelihood of irreparable harm.  This case is now actively pending in the Reno District Court.

See …

Titaness Light Shop v. Sunlight Supply, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-0620-LRH,

2013 WL 4650413, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123837 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2013)

Titaness Light Shop v. Sunlight Supply, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-0620-LRH,

2014 WL 358406, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12326  (D. Nev. Jan. 31, 2014)

Titaness Light Shop v. Sunlight Supply, Inc., 585 Fed. Appx. 390

(9^th Cir. 2014).