- within Law Department Performance and Coronavirus (COVID-19) topic(s)
- with readers working within the Environment & Waste Management industries
What You Need to Know
- Key takeaway#1
Trademark infringement claims based on sale of gray market goods require showing a material difference between authorized goods intended for sale in the United States and gray market goods intended for sale in another jurisdiction. Brand owners should be prepared to document clear distinctions between foreign- and U.S.-market products, as even small differences in formulation, packaging, or labeling can support a successful injunction.
- Key takeaway#2
Companies seeking or challenging injunctions should note that courts may cut back on requested relief that is overbroad or vague.
- Key takeaway#3
Trademark owners should be prepared to move quickly to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as delays in seeking such relief can undercut the argument that irreparable injury will occur without the emergency relief.
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.'s ("Plaintiff" or "Haldiram") motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Punjab Trading"), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
The Haldiram Products and the Discovery of Unauthorized Products in Washington State
The court further determined that Haldiram had established irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is presumed for purposes of a preliminary injunction in a trademark case upon a showing of likely success on the merits, and Punjab Trading offered no evidence to rebut that presumption. The court also credited declarations explaining how Punjab Trading's sales harmed Haldiram's goodwill, brand value, and customer relationships categories of harm that courts consistently view as difficult to quantify and therefore irreparable.
The balance of equities likewise favored Haldiram because Punjab had no legal right to sell the unauthorized products, meaning the injunction merely prevented continued unlawful conduct. Without injunctive relief, the court found, Punjab would likely persist in activities that damaged Haldiram's trademark rights and marketplace reputation.
Finally, the court concluded that an injunction served the public interest by preventing consumer confusion and ensuring that only compliant, authorized versions of the products entered the U.S. market.
Timing of Motion
On August 20, 2025, Haldiram filed its motion for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, nearly a year after Haldiram sent correspondence to Punjab regarding their unauthorized actions. The following day, the court denied the request for an ex parte TRO, finding that "Haldiram's lengthy delay in seeking that relief undercut its professed need for emergency relief before Punjab could be heard." However, the court did grant Haldiram's request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue and set a briefing schedule prior to issuing the instant order.
Scope of the Injunction
The court held that certain aspects of the proposed injunction were overbroad or vague. It granted relief only to the extent necessary to prevent Punjab from importing, distributing, or selling materially different Haldiram products not intended for the U.S. market. The court declined to require a bond, finding no realistic likelihood of harm to Punjab from being prevented from selling products it had no right to sell.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
