Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And

Summary

A motion and supporting memorandum of law by Plaintiff 3M Company in 3M Company v. TAC2 Global LLC, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, case 8:20-cv-1003-T-35CPT, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It asks to enjoin the Defendant from using the 3M Marks in commerce, holding itself out as an authorized distributor or vendor of 3M-brand products, falsely representing that 3M has increased respirator prices, and offering to sell 3M products in violation of § 501.160(2), Florida Statutes. It alleges that the Defendant used 3M's mark in an email and itemized quote to the Florida Department of Management Services Emergency Operations Center in an attempt to sell counterfeit or non-existent respirators at 430% above 3M's list price.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

3M COMPANY,

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: No. 8:20-cv-1003-T-35CPT
TAC2 GLOBAL LLC,

Defendant.
________________________/
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and Local Rules 4.05 and 4.06, Plaintiff 3M Company
(“Plaintiff” or “3M”) hereby moves for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary
injunction (“PI”) enjoining Defendant TAC2 Global, LLC (“Defendant” or “TAC2”) from: (1)
using any of the 3M Marks (as defined in Plaintiff’s Complaint) in commerce; (2) holding
itself out to consumers and/or the public as an authorized distributor or vendor of 3M-brand
products, or holding itself out as having any affiliation, connection, or association with 3M in
any way; (3) falsely representing that 3M has increased the prices of 3M-brand N95 respirators
as a result of the COVID-19 crisis or that 3M has required or authorized others to increase the
prices of 3M-brand N95 respirators as a result of the COVID-19 crisis; and (4) offering to sell
any of 3M’s products at a price and/or in a manner that would constitute a violation of §
501.160(2), Florida Statutes. 3M also requests that Defendant be required to file an affidavit
detailing and confirming its compliance with the Court’s orders. In support of this Motion,
Plaintiff states as follows:
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 1 of 29 PageID 163

2
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
For over a century, 3M has provided state-of-the-art, industry-leading scientific and
medical products to consumers worldwide under its famous 3M marks.  In light of the COVID-
19 pandemic, now, more than ever, consumers are relying on the famous 3M brand to confirm
that the 3M product is the same superior quality that consumers have come to expect from 3M.
This is especially true with respect to 3M’s numerous industry-leading healthcare products and
personal protective equipment (“PPE”), including 3M-brand N95 respirators.
Unfortunately, Defendant is engaging in fraudulent, deceptive, and otherwise wrongful
use of 3M’s famous “3M” trademarks to perpetuate a price-gouging scheme on unwitting
consumers, including government agencies, during the global COVID-19 pandemic.  Through
this Motion, 3M seeks to stop this bad actor.
Defendant is not an authorized distributor of any of 3M’s products and it has no right
to use 3M’s trademarks.  Nonetheless, Defendant reproduced and incorporated 3M’s mark into
an email and itemized quote in an attempt to sell counterfeit or non-existent 3M-brand N95
respirators to the Florida Department of Management Services (“DMS”) Emergency
Operations Center (“EOC”) at 430% above 3M’s list price.  Defendant’s actions strain the
limited resources available to combat COVID-19 and constitute price gouging by any measure,
including under Section 501.160(2), Florida Statutes.1

1 Section 501.160(2), Florida Statutes states, in part:
Upon a declaration of a state of emergency by the Governor, it is unlawful and a violation of §
501.204 for a person or her or his agent or employee to rent or sell or offer to rent or sell at an
unconscionable price within the area for which the state of emergency is declared, any essential
commodity including, but not limited to, supplies, services, provisions, or equipment that is
necessary for consumption or use as a direct result of the emergency.
Governor Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency on March 9, 2020. See Executive Order 20-52.
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 2 of 29 PageID 164

3

Defendant’s wrongful conduct also has caused justifiable public outrage. By promoting
an improper association between 3M’s mark, a fraudulent contractual relationship with the 3M
manufacturer, and exploitative pricing behavior, Defendant threatens imminent and irreparable
harm to 3M’s brand.  3M will not tolerate these pandemic profiteers, who seek to deceptively
trade off the goodwill of the 3M brand and exploit the surge in demand for 3M-brand products
during the COVID-19 global pandemic.
Defendant’s conduct must be promptly enjoined to avoid further confusion of, and injury to,
consumers, and to avoid irreparable injury and damage to 3M in the absence of such relief.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I.
3M Company
3M has grown from humble beginnings in 1902 as a small-scale mining venture in
Northern Minnesota to what it is today, namely: an industry-leading provider of scientific,
technical, and marketing innovations throughout the world. See Declaration of David A. Crist
(“Crist Decl.”) at ¶ 4. Today, 3M’s portfolio includes more than 60,000 goods and services,
ranging from household and school supplies, to industrial and manufacturing materials, to
medical supplies and equipment. Id. at ¶ 5. 3M offers its vast array of goods and services
throughout the world under numerous brands, including ACE, POST-IT, SCOTCH, and
NEXCARE.  Id. at ¶ 6. 3M also uses its famous “3M Science. Applied to Life” slogan to
promote its goods and services. Id. at ¶ 10.
Notwithstanding the widespread goodwill and resounding commercial success enjoyed
by these brands, 3M’s most famous and widely recognized brand is its eponymous “3M” brand.
Id. at ¶ 7. The 3M brand is associated with a wide variety of medical devices, supplies, and
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 3 of 29 PageID 165

4
PPE, including respirators, stethoscopes, medical tapes, surgical gowns, blankets, bandages
and other wound-care products.  Id. As a result, 3M-branded products are highly visible
throughout hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities where patients, care providers, and
procurement officers value and rely upon the high quality and integrity associated with the 3M
brand. Id. at ¶ 8.
Over the past century, 3M has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising
and promoting its 3M-brand products to consumers throughout the world under the standard-
character mark “3M” and the inset 3M design mark (together, the “3M Marks”). Id. at ¶ 10.
The general consuming public associates the 3M Marks uniquely with 3M and recognizes them
as identifying 3M as the exclusive source of goods and services offered under the 3M Marks.
Id. at ¶ 17. Indeed, products offered under the 3M Marks (including, for example, Plaintiff’s
3M-brand N95 respirator) have enjoyed enormous commercial success and critical acclaim.
Id. at ¶¶ 11–12.
To strengthen 3M’s common-law rights in and to its famous 3M Marks, 3M has
obtained numerous federal trademark registrations, including, without limitation:
(i)
U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,398,329, which covers the standard-
character 3M mark in Int. Classes 9 and 10 for, inter alia, respirators
(the “‘329 Registration”);
(ii)
U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,793,534, which covers the 3M design
mark in Int. Classes 1, 5, and 10 for, inter alia, respirators (the “‘534
Registration”); and
(iii)
U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 5,469,903, which covers the “3M Science.
Applied to Life” slogan in a number of Int. Classes, including Int.
Class 9 for facial masks and respirators (the “‘903 Registration”).
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 4 of 29 PageID 166

5
Id. at ¶ 13. The ‘329, ‘534, and ‘903 Registrations are valid, in effect, and on the Principal
Trademark Register.  See id. at Exs. 4–8. The ‘329 and ‘534 Registrations are “incontestable”
within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1065.2 See id. at Exs. 5 & 7.
The 3M Marks do more than identify 3M as the exclusive source of goods and services
offered thereunder.  Id. at ¶ 17. Indeed, the famous 3M Marks also signify to consumers that
the products are of the highest quality and adhere to the strictest quality-control standards.  Id.
at ¶¶ 8–9. Consumers rely on the famous 3M Marks’ ability to signify that products offered
are of the same high quality that consumers have come to expect of the 3M brand over the past
century. Id. at ¶ 8.
Medical professionals and first responders are donning extensive PPE as they place
their health and safety on the line in the battle against COVID-19. 3M has and continues to
provide our heroes on the front lines with 3M-brand respirators. See Declaration of Charles
Stobbie (“Stobbie Decl.”) at ¶¶ 6–7. When used appropriately, authentic 3M-brand respirators
reduce exposure to airborne biological particles and liquid contamination. Id. at ¶ 5. Based on
the exponential increase in demand for 3M-brand respirators, 3M invested the necessary capital
and resources to double its global annual production of 1.1 billion 3M-brand respirators. Id. at
¶ 8. But 3M has not increased its prices.  Id. at ¶ 12.

2 Accordingly, the ‘329 and ‘534 Registrations constitute conclusive evidence of: (i) Plaintiff’s ownership of the
3M Marks; (ii) the validity of the 3M Marks; (iii) the validity of the registration of the 3M Marks; and (iv)
Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the 3M Marks throughout the United States for, inter alia, respirators.  Relatedly,
the ‘903 Registration constitutes prima facie evidence of: (i) Plaintiff’s ownership of the “3M Science. Applied
to Life” slogan; (ii) the validity of the “3M Science. Applied to Life” slogan; (iii) the validity of the registration
of the “3M Science. Applied to Life” slogan; and (iv) Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the “3M Science. Applied
to Life” slogan throughout the United States for, inter alia, respirators.
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 5 of 29 PageID 167

6
Unfortunately, certain third parties do not share 3M’s sense of civic responsibility
during this time of crisis. Instead, these pandemic profiteers seek to exploit the increased
demand for Plaintiff’s 3M-brand N95 respirators through a variety of scams, including price
gouging, counterfeiting, and accepting money for 3M-brand N95 respirators despite not having
the product to sell and/or never intending to deliver the product to the unwitting buyer—in
many instances, a public authority, which struggles to address the enormous financial and
logistical challenges presented by COVID-19.3
To protect consumers from deception and inferior products and reduce the time wasted
by governmental officials on scams, as well as to protect the carefully-curated reputation and
goodwill enjoyed by Plaintiff’s 3M brand, 3M is working diligently with law enforcement,
retail partners, and others to combat unethical and unlawful business practices related to 3M-
brand N95 respirators.4 Id. at ¶¶ 14–16.
II.
Defendant’s Unlawful Conduct
Despite 3M’s extensive measures to combat price gouging and counterfeiting of its
3M-brand N95 respirators, these illicit activities continue. Defendant is a prime example of
this unlawful behavior, which is damaging to the 3M brand and public health.

3 3M has obtained temporary restraining orders in a similar case in this District before Judge Mendoza, see 3M
Company v. Geftico, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00648-CEM-GJK as well as in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, see 3M Company v. RX2Live, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-0523-NONE-SAB. 3M has also
obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in a similar case in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, see 3M Company v. Performance Supply, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-
02949-LAP, copies of the Orders are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4 For example, in late-March 2019, 3M’s Chief Executive Officer, Mike Roman, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney
General, William Barr, and the President of the National Governors Association, Larry Hogan of Maryland, to
offer 3M’s partnership in combatting price gouging.  3M also has attempted to combat price gouging,
counterfeiting, and other unlawful conduct during COVID-19 by, among other things, posting the list price for
3M-brand N95 respirators on 3M’s website, together with an online form and the number for a “fraud hotline,”
to help consumers identify and report price gouging and counterfeiting. Id. at ¶ 14 & Ex. 4.
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 6 of 29 PageID 168

7
On or about April 14, 2020, Defendant sent an email titled Tac2 Global – N95 Masks
and Sanitizer (the “Email”) to the Logistics Section Support Director (“LSSD”) of the DMS’s
EOC. 5 Id. at Ex. 7.  In the Email, Defendant falsely claimed to be a distributor of certified 3M-
brand, N95 Model 1860 respirators and offered to sell them. Id. In the Email, Defendant
included an itemized quote (the “Quote”) addressed to the DMS’ Division of State Purchases
which offered to sell five to ten million 3M-brand, N95 Model 1860 respirators for $5.50 each
and various sizes of bottled hand sanitizer at highly inflated prices. See id. The Quote also
contains a reference to the 3M-brand, N95 Model 1860 respirators that Defendant purportedly
had for sale in the form “3MTM”. Id.
The Quote further contains a series of false and misleading claims involving 3M
including that the Defendant had “further contracted to become a distributor of 3M N95
Masks”; that Defendant’s “pricing will remain fixed and transparent to 3M and their agents”;
that Defendant had a “contract agreement with the 3M Manufacturer”; and that every mask
Defendant would procure would “also be inspected and certified by 3M agents prior to leaving
the manufacturing facility, and we are obligated to offer these masks CIF.” Id.
The Email also contains a purported certificate from the INSPEC organization that
attests to the quality of the masks Defendant is selling (the “Certificate”). Id. The Certificate
does not show in any way that the masks Defendant offers are affiliated with 3M or safe to use.
Id.  Finally, the Email includes attachments containing specifications of the hand sanitizer and
screenshots of Florida business registrations (the “Attachments”). Id.

5 Due to a scrivener’s error, paragraph 40 of the Complaint identified the date of the Email as March 31, 2020
instead of April 14, 2020.  As stated in paragraph 9 of the Complaint and shown in Exhibit G, the Email and
Quote were sent on April 14, 2020.
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 7 of 29 PageID 169

8
Defendant’s use of the 3M mark and invocation of 3M’s name in the Quote and the
inclusion of the Certificate and Attachments were intended to mislead the EOC into believing
that Defendant was an authorized distributor of 3M’s products and/or otherwise had an
association or affiliation with 3M and its products. Id. Under the guise of appearing affiliated
with 3M, Defendant attempted to deceive consumers into purchasing masks at highly inflated
prices. Id. Defendant is not, and never has been, an authorized distributor or vendor of 3M’s
products. Id. Defendant also does not have, and has never had, an association or affiliation with
Plaintiff. Id. The mere association of 3M’s valuable brand with such shameless price gouging
harms the 3M brand and seriously threatens the public health agencies that are under strain in
the midst of a worldwide pandemic. See Crist Decl. at ¶¶ 26–30.
A TRO, followed by a PI, should issue enjoining Defendant from using the 3M Marks
to sell counterfeit or non-existent goods to consumers, to maintain the status quo, and to
preserve 3M’s ability to obtain equitable remedies.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I.
3M Is Entitled to TRO, Followed by a Preliminary Injunction
A TRO may be granted, if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly
show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A); M.D. Fla. R. 4.05.
“TROs are ‘designed to preserve the status quo until there is an opportunity to hold a hearing
on the application for a preliminary injunction.’” United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1264
(11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 8 of 29 PageID 170

9
3M will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if TAC2 is permitted to further use the
3M Marks to sell counterfeit and/or non-existent goods to consumers. A TRO is necessary to
prevent Defendant from continuing to fraudulently induce consumers into buying potentially
unsafe, counterfeit, and/or non-existent PPE at exorbitant prices during a global pandemic.
This unlawful conduct will harm 3M’s business reputation and decrease consumer confidence
in the quality of 3M products.  Moreover, there is a very real harm to 3M (and to the public)
should the public be injured by masks that are counterfeit and below 3M’s manufacturing and
quality control standards. To maintain the status quo, this Court should issue a TRO and PI.
Given the Defendant’s willingness to mislead procurement officers in seeking to sell protective
equipment, 3M also requests that Defendant be required to confirm, under oath, compliance
with the Court’s orders.
II.
3M Satisfies the Standard for Injunctive Relief
Issuance of a TRO and/or a PI is appropriate where the movant demonstrates the
following: (A) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (B) the TRO or PI is necessary
to prevent irreparable injury; (C) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the TRO or PI
would cause to the non-movant; and (D) the TRO or PI would not be adverse to the public
interest. Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001). The
evidence supports each element for granting a TRO and/or PI.
A.
3M is Substantially Likely to Succeed on the Merits
“To support a preliminary injunction, a district court need not find that the evidence
positively guarantees a final verdict in plaintiff's favor.” Levi Strauss & Co., 51 F.3d at 985.
Instead, this Court is asked to determine, among other factors, whether 3M is substantially
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 9 of 29 PageID 171

10
likely to prevail on its claims. 3M is likely to prevail on the merits of its claims under Florida’s
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1125(a)(1)(B) as well as corresponding state law claims.
1.
Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act (“FDUTPA”)
A claim for injunctive relief under FDUTPA requires: (a) a deceptive act or unfair
practice; and (b) that the party was aggrieved by the act or practice. See Kelly v. Palmer,
Reifler, & Assoc., P.A., 681 F.Supp.2d 1356, 1366 (S.D.Fla.2010). Although FDUTPA does
not define “deception,” FDUTPA is “construed liberally.” § 501.202, Fla. Stat.  “FDUTPA
does not require a plaintiff to prove actual reliance on the alleged conduct.” Cold Stone
Creamery, Inc. v. Lenora Foods I, LLC, 332 F. App’x 565, 567 (11th Cir. 2009). Instead, a
plaintiff must prove that “the alleged practice was likely to deceive a consumer acting
reasonably in the same circumstances.”  Id. This objective test considers whether deception is
probable and “likely to cause injury to a reasonable relying consumer.” Zlotnick v. Premier
Sale Grp., 480 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007).  FDUTPA also does not define “aggrieved,”
but it has been construed to have a broader meaning than “damaged” or “suffered a loss,” and
Florida courts have adopted a definition of “angry or sad on grounds of perceived unfair
treatment.”  Ahearn v. Mayo Clinic, 180 So. 3d 165, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Lastly, non-
consumers may bring suit under FDUTPA.  See Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Bus.
Bureau of Palm Beach Cty., Inc., 169 So. 3d 164, 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Defendant Engaged in Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices. Defendant’s practices
of holding itself out to be an authorized distributor or vendor of 3M products and claiming to
have a contract agreement with the 3M Manufacturer, along with its use of the 3M Mark to
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 10 of 29 PageID 172

11
instill a false sense of trust in consumers was likely to deceive and cause injury to any
reasonably relying consumer. Additionally, the products that Defendant advertised are either
counterfeit or non-existent, which further injures consumers that are deceived by Defendant’s
scams. See Crist Decl. at ¶ 30. Defendant has also engaged in price gouging during a declared
State of Emergency in violation of § 501.160, Fla. Stat. Lastly, Defendant has engaged in
trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false and deceptive advertising, unfair
competition, false endorsement, and false association all of which are likely to deceive
consumers acting reasonable in the same circumstances.
3M was Aggrieved by Defendant’s Unfair Trade Practices. 3M’s brand and
reputation have been negatively impacted as a result of the Defendant’s actions. See Crist Decl.
at ¶¶ 26–30. Defendant has exploited the increased demand for Plaintiff’s 3M-brand N95
respirators by offering to sell them for exorbitant prices and selling counterfeit or non-existent
versions of them. Consumers that are privy to these kinds of scams have lost trust in the security
associated with 3M and its brand. This has negatively impacted 3M’s reputation in the global
community.
2.
Trademark Infringement Claims under Federal and Florida Law

The analysis for trademark infringement is the same under Florida and federal law.6 To
prevail on a trademark infringement claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (a) that its mark has
priority; (b) that defendant used its mark in commerce; and (c) that the defendant's mark is
likely to cause consumer confusion. PetMed Express, Inc. v. MedPets.Com, Inc., 336 F. Supp.

6 See, e.g., See Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trustees v. Fla. Nat. Univ., Inc., 91 F. Supp. 3d 1265, 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2015).
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 11 of 29 PageID 173

12
2d 1213, 1218 (S.D. Fla. 2004). As detailed below, 3M is likely to prevail on the merits of its
trademark infringement claim.

First, the 3M Marks have priority. 3M exclusively owns of each of the federally-
registered 3M Marks and has the exclusive right to use each of the 3M Marks in the United
States commerce for, inter alia, advertising, promoting, offering for sale, and selling Plaintiff’s
3M-brand N95 respirators. See Crist Decl. at ¶¶ 13–16. Moreover, 3M’s exclusive rights to
each of the 3M Marks predate any rights that Defendant could establish in and to any mark
that consists of “3M” in whole and/or in part. See id. 3M has not consented to the use of its
famous 3M Marks by Defendant. See id. at ¶ 20.

Second, Defendant clearly used 3M’s Mark and name to advertise, promote, and offer
to sell counterfeit and/or non-existent products in connection with the sale and advertising of
its goods, which constitutes “use in commerce” under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a).7 Indeed,
Defendant offered to sell millions of 3M-brand, N95 Model 1860 respirators to the DMS’
EOC. See id. at ¶¶ 19–21. To promote its efforts, Defendant sent an Email with an itemized
Quote, which used the 3M Mark.  See id. at ¶ 19.
Third, Defendant’s use of the 3M Mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. Courts
in the Eleventh Circuit consider seven factors to determine whether likelihood of consumer
confusion exists: (1) type of mark; (2) similarity of mark; (3) similarity of the products the
marks represent; (4) similarity of the parties’ trade channels and customers; (5) similarity of

7 See N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1218–19 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating that “[i]n
deciding whether [Defendant] has made an infringing ‘use,’ we focus on the plain language of § 1114(1)(a),
which…requires a ‘use in commerce ... of a registered mark in connection with the sale...or advertising of any
goods,’” and finding that Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s two trademarks as part of its effort to promote and
advertise its products constituted use in commerce under the plain meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a)).
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 12 of 29 PageID 174

13
advertising media; (6) the defendant’s intent; and (7) actual confusion. Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of
Trustees, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 1274.  Of these factors, the type of mark and evidence of actual
confusion are considered the most important.  Id. at 1274 (citation omitted).8
Type of Mark. Classifying a mark determines its strength. Frehling Enterprises, Inc.
v. Int'l Select Grp., Inc., 192 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999).  There are four types of marks:
(1) generic, (2) descriptive, (3) suggestive, and (4) arbitrary.  Id.  An arbitrary mark is the
strongest of the marks and is defined as “a word or phrase that bears no relationship to the
product.” Id. 3M’s Marks are arbitrary as they bear no relationship to the products 3M sells.
Further, if a mark is incontestable, its strength is enhanced.9 Id. 3M uses its marks exclusively
and its ‘329 and ‘534 Registrations are “incontestable” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §
1065. Thus, 3M’s marks are undoubtedly strong.
Similarity of Marks. When analyzing the similarity of the marks, a court compares
the marks and considers the overall impressions that the marks create, including the sounds,
appearance, and manner in which they are used. Frehling, 192 F.3d at 1335. Here, Defendant
used a very similar version of 3M’s Marks, “3M™”. Defendant did not add text or other images
to the marks to render them dissimilar or reduce the likelihood that consumers would confuse
the two marks. Defendant, albeit fraudulently, also used the mark in the manner it is used by
3M: for the sale of 3M-branded PPE. See Crist Decl. at ¶¶ 19–21.

8 Nonetheless, likelihood of confusion should not be determined “by merely analyzing whether a majority of the
subsidiary factors indicates that such a likelihood exists ... [r]ather, a court must evaluate the weight to be accorded
the individual factors and then make its ultimate decision.”  Id.

9 A mark is incontestable if it has been registered for five years with the Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”), its
holder has filed the affidavit required by 15 U.S.C. § 1065(3) with the PTO, and the PTO has accordingly declared
the mark incontestable.
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 13 of 29 PageID 175

14
Similarity of the Goods. “This factor requires a determination as to whether the
products are the kind that the public attributes to a single source, not whether or not the
purchasing public can readily distinguish between the products of the respective parties.”
Frehling, 192 F.3d at1338. Here, the masks that Defendant advertised were similar in both
function and design to those sold by 3M. Although the Defendant’s masks were either
counterfeit or non-existent, the masks advertised were meant to resemble that of the 3M brand
in function, design, and style.
Similarity of the Parties’ Retail Outlets (Trade Channels) and Customers. “This
factor takes into consideration where, how, and to whom the parties’ products are sold.”
Frehling, 192 F.3d at 1339. 3M offers its vast array of goods and services throughout the world
under numerous brands. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 3M-brand N95 respirators have
been in high demand and have been sold to a large customer base, including government
agencies.  See Stobbie Decl. at ¶¶ 11, 26.  Defendant advertised its counterfeit or non-existent
respirators as being 3M-brand N95 respirators to the DMS’ EOC—a government agency.  See
id. at ¶ 19. Clearly, 3M’s customer base undoubtedly overlaps with customers Defendant seeks
to secure.  Further, Defendant sought to exploit the increased demand for 3M-brand respirators
during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it capitalized on 3M’s consumers to do so.
Similarity of Advertising Media. “[T]he standard is whether there is likely to be
significant enough overlap in the readership of the publications in which the parties advertise
that a possibility of confusion could result.” Frehling, 192 F.3d at 1340.  3M advertises in print
media, including magazines, newspapers, catalogs, and direct mailings as well as through
electronic publications, including its website, and makes offers to certain consumers via email.
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 14 of 29 PageID 176

15
Defendant used email to advertise its products. Although the parties do not use the exact same
channels of advertising, Defendant intentionally targeted consumers interested in buying 3M-
brand respirators. To that end, many of the same consumers would be exposed to the same
advertisements, and by derivation, the 3M Marks. There would be significant overlap in the
readership of 3M’s advertisements and the readership of Defendant’s offers.
Defendant’s Intent. When a defendant adopts a plaintiff’s mark with the intention of
deriving a benefit from the plaintiff’s business reputation, this fact alone justifies the inference
of a confusing similarity. Frehling, 192 F.3d at 1340. Defendant sought to exploit the increased
demand for 3M-brand respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic through using the 3M mark
to sell counterfeit or non-existent goods at exorbitant prices. Defendant used the 3M Mark to
deceive and instill false confidence in consumers to get them to purchase its counterfeit or non-
existent goods.
Actual Confusion. Evidence of actual confusion is the best evidence of a likelihood of
confusion.  Frehling, 192 F.3d at 1340. In this case, Defendant’s use of the 3M Mark caused
actual confusion, and indeed caused the DMS’ EOC to contact 3M because of Defendant’s use
of the 3M Mark. See Crist Decl. at ¶ 25.
3.
Florida and Federal Dilution Claims
The standard for establishing a trademark dilution claim under Florida law is essentially
the same as that of trademark dilution under the Lanham Act.  Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trustees,
91 F. Supp. 3d at 1286. To prevail on a dilution claim, the plaintiff must show that: (a) the
plaintiff’s mark is famous; (b) the defendant used the plaintiff’s mark after the plaintiff's mark
became famous; (c) the defendant’s use was commercial and in commerce; and (d) the
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 15 of 29 PageID 177

16
defendant’s use of the mark has likely caused dilution. Id. 3M is likely to prevail on the merits
of its trademark dilution claim.
First, Plaintiff’s Mark is famous. “To be ‘famous’ in the context of a trademark dilution
claim, the mark must have a degree of distinctiveness and strength beyond that needed to serve
as a trademark; it must be truly prominent and renowned.” Id. 3M has invested significant time,
energy and money in advertising and promoting its 3M-brand products to consumers
throughout the world under the standard-character mark “3M” and the inset 3M design mark.
See Crist Decl. at ¶ 10.  roducts offered under Plaintiff’s 3M Marks have enjoyed enormous
commercial success (including, without limitation, its 3M-brand N95 respirators) and have
regularly been the subject of widespread, unsolicited media coverage and critical acclaim. See
id. at ¶¶ 11–12. Accordingly, the 3M Marks have become prominent, renowned, and famous
among the general consuming public in the United States.
Second, Defendant used the 3M Mark after the 3M Marks became famous. Defendant
used the 3M Mark on or about April 14, 2020. See Crist Decl. at ¶¶ 19–21. This date occurred
long after the 3M Mark became famous and over a century after 3M’s inception. Third,
Defendant’s use of the 3M Mark was commercial and in commerce. The arguments set forth
in Section II.A(2) above apply with equal force and effect to the determination of whether
Defendant’s use was commercial and in commerce; therefore, 3M incorporates the arguments
in Section II.A(2) as though fully set forth herein. Fourth, Defendant’s use of the 3M Mark
has likely caused dilution. In determining whether a mark is likely to cause dilution, this Court
may consider all relevant factors, including: (i) the degree of similarity between the mark and
the famous mark; (ii) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark;
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 16 of 29 PageID 178

17
(iii) the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive
use of the mark; (iv) the degree of recognition of the famous mark; (v) whether the user of the
mark intended to create an association with the famous mark; and (vi) any actual association
between the mark and the famous mark. Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 1287.
Defendant imitated the 3M Mark in the Quote to the DMS’ EOC. In fact, Defendant
used a mark very similar to the 3M Mark. As established, the 3M Mark is distinct and unique
to the 3M brand. The Mark is not associated with any other brand, and could not be mistaken
for representing any company other than 3M. The 3M Mark’s distinctiveness is both inherent
and acquired. Moreover, 3M has not consented to any other brand or company using its Mark.
3M’s Mark is exclusively for 3M-brand products.
Defendant used the 3M Mark to mislead the DMS’ EOC into believing that Defendant
was an authorized distributor of 3M’s products and/or otherwise had an association or
affiliation with 3M and its products. Defendant is not, and never has been, an authorized
distributor or vendor of 3M’s products or had, an association or affiliation with 3M. Defendant
also never had a contractual relationship with the 3M Manufacturer. Finally, as Defendant
specifically used a mark similar to 3M’s Mark, there is high association between the mark
Defendant used and the famous 3M Mark.
4.
Common Law and Federal Unfair Competition Claim
The elements of a claim for unfair competition are the same under Florida and federal
law. Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 1288. To prevail on a claim for unfair
competition, a “plaintiff must show: (a) that the plaintiff had enforceable trademark rights in
the mark or name; and (b) that the defendant made unauthorized use of it such that consumers
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 17 of 29 PageID 179

18
were likely to confuse the two.” TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1257
(S.D. Fla. 2015) (citation omitted). The legal standard for unfair competition under both the
Lanham Act and the common law has been held to be essentially the same as the standard for
trademark infringement. Fla. Int'l Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 1284-85. Courts
therefore apply the same seven-factor “likelihood of confusion” test brought under 15 USC §
1125(a). Id. The arguments set forth in Section II.A(2) above apply with equal force and effect
to the determination of whether 3M had enforceable trademark rights in the 3M Marks;
therefore, 3M incorporates the arguments in Section II.A(2) as though fully set forth herein.
Moreover, Defendant used the 3M Mark in the Email and Quote to the DMS’ EOC in order to
advertise, offer to sell, and/or promote counterfeit or non-existent 3M-brand N95 respirators
without 3M’s consent.  See Crist Decl. at ¶ 22.  As Defendant used a mark extremely similar
to the 3M Mark, consumers of the Defendant’s “products” were highly likely to confuse the
products Defendant advertised with authentic 3M-brand products.
5.
Federal False Advertising Claim
To prevail on a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must establish
that: (a) the defendant’s advertisements were false or misleading; (b) the advertisements
deceived, or had the capacity to deceive, consumers; (c) the deception had a material effect on
purchasing decisions; (d) the misrepresented product or service affects interstate commerce;
and (e) the plaintiff has been injured as a result of the false advertising. Appjigger GmbH v.
BLU Prod., Inc., No. 15-22313-CIV, 2016 WL 4119720, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2016).
The Defendant’s Advertisements were False or Misleading. Defendant’s Quote and
Email to the DMS’ EOC were false and misleading in several ways. First, in the Email,
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 18 of 29 PageID 180

19
Defendant purported to be a recently contracted authorized distributor of 3M’s products that
otherwise had association or affiliation with 3M and its products. See Crist Decl. at ¶ 19.
Defendant is not, and never has been, an authorized distributor or vendor of 3M’s products or
associated or affiliated with 3M. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 24. Second, in the Email, Defendant purported
to have a contractual relationship with the 3M Manufacturer. Defendant does not have, and has
never had, said contractual relationship with the 3M Manufacturer. Id. at ¶ 22. Third,
Defendant used a mark similar to 3M’s famous standard-character 3M mark in the Quote. Id
at ¶ 19. This is misleading as neither Defendant nor its counterfeit or non-existent products are
associated or affiliated with 3M. Id. at ¶ 22. Fourth, Defendant’s Quote made several false
statements, including, but not limited to the following:
a. That the Defendant had “further contracted to become a distributor
of 3M N95 Masks.”;
b. That Defendant’s “pricing will remain fixed and transparent to 3M
and their agents.”;
c. That Defendant had a  “contract agreement with the 3M
Manufacturer”; and
d. “Every mask we [Defendant] procure will also be inspected and
certified by 3M agents prior to leaving the manufacturing facility,
and we are obligated to offer these masks CIF.”
Id. at ¶ 20.
The Advertisements had the Capacity to Deceive Consumers. Defendant used the
famous 3M Mark in its advertisement and targeted a member of a government agency
committed to battling COVID-19 to sell counterfeit or non-existent 3M-band N95 respirators.
Id at ¶¶ 18–21. Defendant also held itself out to be an authorized distributor or vendor of 3M
products. Id. at ¶¶ 19, 22.  Given the current high demand for PPE, specifically 3M-brand N95
respirators, and 3M’s reputation for producing uniquely high quality products to its consumers,
Defendant’s unlawful behavior certainly had the capacity to deceive unwitting consumers
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 19 of 29 PageID 181

20
seeking authentic 3M products and in fact confused the DMS’ EOC who contacted 3M to
confirm any relationship between Defendant and 3M.
The Deception had a Material Effect on Purchasing Decisions. Based on
longstanding, continuous use, consumers associate the 3M Marks uniquely with 3M. Now,
more than ever, consumers are also relying on the famous 3M Marks to indicate that the
products offered thereunder are of the same superior quality that consumers have come to
expect over the past century. Given the high demand for 3M-brand N95 masks, consumers rely
on the famous 3M Marks to indicate the safety and high quality of the products they purchase.
Use of the 3M Marks in advertisements has caused consumers to make purchasing decisions
that they would not have absent the association with the 3M brand.
The Misrepresented Product Affects Interstate Commerce. 3M sells its products
throughout the United States and globally. Now more than ever, consumers across the United
States are buying 3M-brand N95 respirators. The sale of these respirators undoubtedly affects
interstate commerce.
3M has been Injured as a Result of the False Advertising. The arguments set forth
in Section II.A(2) above apply with equal force and effect to the determination of whether 3M
had enforceable trademark rights in the 3M Marks; therefore, 3M incorporates the arguments
in Section II.A(2) as though fully set forth herein.
6.
Federal False Endorsement, False Association, and False
Designation of Origin Claims
“To establish a prima facie case under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must show: (a) that the
plaintiff had enforceable trademark rights in [a] mark or name; and (b) that the defendant made
unauthorized use of it ‘such that consumers were likely to confuse the two.” Gatewood v.
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 20 of 29 PageID 182

21
Frency's Corp., Inc., No. 8:16-CV-340-T-36AAS, 2017 WL 4861352, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Sept.
19, 2017); Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc., 683 F.3d 1266, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff Had Enforceable Trademark Rights in the Mark or Name. The arguments
set forth in Section II.A(2) above apply with equal force and effect to the determination of
whether 3M had enforceable trademark rights in the 3M Marks; therefore, 3M incorporates the
arguments in Section II.A(2) as though fully set forth herein.
Defendant Made Unauthorized use of the Mark such that Consumers Were Likely
to Confuse the Two. The arguments set forth in Section II.A(2) above apply with equal force
and effect to the determination of whether Defendant made unauthorized use of the 3M Mark
such that consumers would confuse the two; therefore, 3M incorporates the arguments in
Section II.A(2) as though fully set forth herein.
B.
3M Has Suffered and Will Continue to Suffer Irreparable Injury in the Absence
of a TRO and PI

Without injunctive relief, 3M will suffer irreparable injury because Defendant will
continue to use 3M’s trademark to fraudulently induce consumers into buying counterfeit
and/or non-existent, exorbitantly-priced PPE.  Given the current pandemic, the public is relying
on the high standards associated with the 3M brand now, more than ever, to indicate that the
respirators offered for sale are, in fact, genuine and adhere to the 3M brand’s rigorous
standards.  Defendant, and others, are seeking to exploit this fact during a time the public is
making hurried purchasing decisions.  By falsely representing itself as an authorized distributor
of 3M-brand products, as well as offering to sell those products at exorbitantly high prices,
Defendant is confusing and deceiving the public about the source and quality of purported 3M-
brand products offered under the 3M Marks.  Furthermore, Defendant has caused irreparable
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 21 of 29 PageID 183

22
harm to 3M’s goodwill by falsely stating that 3M has raised its prices.  See Crist Decl. at ¶¶
27, 29.  The continued sales and/or attempted sales of these counterfeit and non-existent masks
will harm 3M’s business reputation. See id. at ¶¶ 26-30; see also Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise
Int'l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1995) (finding that the continued sale of
thousands of counterfeit jeans by the defendant would damage plaintiff’s business reputation
and decrease its legitimate sales); see also HomeVestors of Am., Inc. v. Bay Area Hauling,
LLC, No. 8:18-CV-1377-T-36AAS, 2019 WL 5394189, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2019)
(finding injunctive relief to be warranted when the plaintiff plausibly alleged the defendant
used plaintiff’s protected marks without consent “in a manner likely to cause confusion
amongst customers”).
Accordingly, unless this Court restrains and enjoins Defendant’s unlawful conduct—
immediately through the issuance of a TRO—the Defendant will still be able to harm the public
in the form of confusion and deception about the source and quality of the purported 3M-brand
respirators that Defendant is offering to sell for exorbitantly high prices.
C.
The Threatened Injuries to 3M Outweigh Any Damage a TRO and PI May
Cause Defendant

The threatened injuries to 3M, discussed above, are both severe and irreversible. By
contrast, Defendant will suffer no legitimate harm from being prevented from further using the
3M Mark to sell non-existent and/or counterfeit products to the public at outrageous prices.
See Laboratorios Roldan, C. por A. v. Tex Int'l, Inc., 902 F. Supp. 1555, 1571 (S.D. Fla. 1995)
(holding that the defendant had “no legitimate interest in the continued use of [plaintiff’s]
mark.”). Accordingly, the balance of interests in this case weighs heavily in favor of 3M.  The
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 22 of 29 PageID 184

23
prohibition of Defendant’s unlawful use of 3M’s Mark is a small burden when weighed against
the total denial of justice for 3M and the lack of protection for its customers.
D.
The Issuance of a TRO and a PI is not Adverse to the Public Interest

Finally, the public has an interest in preventing Defendant’s unlawful activities,
including advertising counterfeit or non-existent goods and committing trademark
infringement that has led to consumer confusion. See Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int'l Corp.,
263 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[P]ublic interest is served by preventing consumer
confusion in the marketplace.”).10

Moreover, given the current pandemic and the vital nature of the product at issue, a
TRO and/or PI would actually benefit the public interest.  The distribution and use of
respirators that are counterfeit and below 3M’s standards of manufacturing and quality control,
but contain 3M marks, would undermine efforts to control the pandemic.  These counterfeit
masks would not provide the expected protection to the public and would endanger the public
on a massive scale.

10 PODS Enterprises, LLC v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1263, 1287 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (“In trademark
infringement cases, the public interest ordinarily favors the issuance of injunctions to avoid consumer
confusion.”); Gaffigan v. Does 1-10, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1341 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (where the court agreed that
the issuance of a preliminary injunction was in the best interest of the general public because the public had an
interest in not being misled as to the origin, source, or sponsorship of trademarked products after defendants
directly defrauded the consuming public by passing off their goods as genuine goods and falsely identified
Plaintiffs as the origin of such goods); N. Atl. Operating Co., Inc. v. Hammad Enterprises Inc., No. 19-CV-60200,
2019 WL 1468524, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2019) (“[T]he public interest favors issuance of the preliminary
injunction to protect Plaintiffs' trademark interests and protect the public from being defrauded by the palming
off of counterfeit goods as Plaintiffs’ genuine goods.”); Maurer Rides USA, Inc. v. Beijing Shibaolia Amusement
Equip. Co ., Ltd., No. 6:10-CV-1718-ORL-37, 2012 WL 2469981, at *6 (M.D. Fla. May 30, 2012).

Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 23 of 29 PageID 185

24
III.
3M SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO POST BOND.
Due to Defendant’s abhorrent and unlawful activity, 3M respectfully submits that it
should not be required to post bond if preliminary injunctive relief is granted.11
If the Court declines to waive the bond in this action, 3M respectfully submits that a
bond no greater than $10,000.00 will be sufficient to safeguard the interests of the Defendant.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Based upon 3M’s strong showing on each of the factors considered in granting
preliminary relief, 3M respectfully requests that a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction be granted until a full trial on this matter can be scheduled, enjoining
Defendant from the following:
1.
Using any of the 3M Marks in commerce;
2.
Holding itself out to consumers and/or the public as an authorized distributor or
vendor of 3M-brand products, or holding itself out as having any affiliation, connection, or
association with 3M in any way;
3.
Falsely representing that 3M has increased the prices of 3M-brand N95
respirators as a result of the COVID-19 crisis or that 3M has required or authorized others to
increase the prices of 3M-brand N95 respirators as a result of the COVID-19 crisis; and

11 Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) requires a plaintiff to post a security bond if temporary relief
is ordered, this Court has discretion to waive that requirement.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). “[T]he amount of
security required by [Rule 65(c)] is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and the court may elect to
require no security at all.”  BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., LLC, 425 F.3d
964, 971 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted); see also Carillon Importers, Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Intern.
Group Ltd., 112 F.3d 1125, 1126–27 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The amount of an injunction bond is within the sound
discretion of the district court.”). Furthermore, where, as here, a plaintiff makes a strong showing of likelihood of
success on the merits, waiver of the bond requirement is especially appropriate. See Baldree v. Cargill, Inc., 758
F. Supp. 704, 707 (M.D. Fla. 1990).
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 24 of 29 PageID 186

25
4.
  Offering to sell any of 3M’s products at a price and/or in a manner that would
constitute a violation of § 501.160(2), Florida Statutes.
5.
3M further requests that Defendant be required to file, within seven days of the
Court’s order, a sworn statement detailing its compliance with the terms above and identifying
all people and entities to whom Defendant made such representations since the pandemic
declaration.
RULE 65(b)(1)(B) CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that no efforts were made to give notice to Defendant of this Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order; and, for the reasons stated above, no such notice should be
required.
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(j), 3M requests oral argument with respect to the motion
for preliminary injunction and believes one hour shall be sufficient.
Dated: May 6, 2020

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
By:
 /s/ Joseph M. Wasserkrug
Joseph M. Wasserkrug
Florida Bar No.: 112274
jwasserkrug@mwe.com
333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4500
Miami, FL 33131-4336
T: 305.347.6501 | F: 305.675.8403

Michael W. Weaver
Illinois Bar No.: 6291021
(Application for admission pro hac vice
forthcoming)
mweaver@mwe.com

444 W. Lake Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, IL 60606-0029

T: 312.984.5820 | F: 312.277.2972
DM_US 168241777-5.099922.0012
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 25 of 29 PageID 187

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

3M COMPANY,

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: No. 8:20-cv-1003-T-35CPT
TAC2 GLOBAL LLC,

Defendant.
________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 3M COMPANY’S MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff 3M Company’s (“Plaintiff” or
“3M”) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction (the
“Motion”).

On May __, 2020, Plaintiff 3M Company filed the Motion, seeking to enjoin
Defendant TAC2 Global, LLC (“Defendant” or “TAC2 Global”) from (1) using any of the
3M Marks (as defined in Plaintiff’s Complaint) in commerce; (2) holding itself out to
consumers and/or the public as an authorized distributor or vendor of 3M-brand products,
or holding itself out as having any affiliation, connection, or association with 3M in any
way; (3) falsely representing that 3M has increased the prices of 3M-brand N95 respirators
as a result of the COVID-19 crisis or that 3M has required or authorized others to increase
the prices of 3M-brand N95 respirators as a result of the COVID-19 crisis; and (4) offering
to sell any of 3M’s products at a price and/or in a manner that would constitute a violation
of § 501.160(2), Florida Statutes. 3M further requested that Defendant be required to file
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 26 of 29 PageID 188

2

an affidavit detailing and confirming its compliance with the Court’s orders. The Court has
considered the Motion, memorandum of law, and verified declarations and is otherwise
fully advised in the premises. The Court concludes that the issuance of a TRO is warranted.

To obtain a TRO, a movant must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits; (2) that the preliminary injunction or TRO is necessary to prevent irreparable
injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction or TRO
would cause the other litigants; and (4) that the preliminary injunction or TRO would not
be adverse to the public interest. Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032,
1035 (11th Cir. 2001). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), the Court may
enter a TRO without notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if (1) specific facts in
the affidavit clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result
to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (2) the movant’s
attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and why such notice should not
be required. Plaintiff has met these requirements.

Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims under
the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) as well as its state law claims for dilution,
trademark infringement, and unfair competition, and Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). Defendant would irreparably harm Plaintiff by continuing its
use of Plaintiff’s trademarks for the sale of counterfeit or non-existent 3M-brand products.
Because the continued infringement upon Plaintiff’s trademarks causes irreparable harm,
Plaintiff has demonstrated that without a temporary restraining order it will suffer
immediate and irreparable injury before Defendant can be heard in opposition to the
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 27 of 29 PageID 189

3

Motion. The harm to Plaintiff is not outweighed by any interest to the public. To the
contrary, it is in the public interest to temporarily restrain Defendant from using Plaintiff’s
trademarks to sell, or attempt to sell, counterfeit and non-existent 3M-brand products at
exorbitant prices during the height of a global pandemic.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order is GRANTED as follows:

Defendant and all persons acting on behalf of TAC2 Global are hereby
temporarily restrained from using any of the 3M Marks, as defined in the Motion, in
commerce.

Defendant and all persons acting on behalf of TAC2 Global are hereby
temporarily restrained from holding themselves out to consumers and/or the public as
authorized distributors or vendors of 3M-brand products, or holding themselves out as
having any affiliation, connection, or association with 3M in any way.

Defendant and all persons acting on behalf of TAC2 Global are hereby
temporarily restrained from falsely representing that 3M has increased the prices of 3M-
brand N95 respirators as a result of the COVID-19 crisis or that 3M has required or
authorized others to increase the prices of 3M-brand N95 respirators as a result of the
COVID-19 crisis.

Defendant and all persons acting on behalf of TAC2 Global are hereby
temporarily restrained from offering to sell any of 3M’s products at a price and/or in a
manner that would constitute a violation of § 501.160(2), Florida Statutes.
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 28 of 29 PageID 190

4

Defendant is also required to file, within seven days of this order, a sworn
statement detailing its compliance with the terms above and identifying all people and
entities to whom Defendant made such representations since the pandemic declaration.

This TRO will remain in effect for 14 days from the time of this order, or
until this Court may rule on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, whichever is
sooner. This Court may, however, for good cause, extend that period of time. TAC2 Global
may also consent to an extension of this restraining order.

The bond requirement is waived. No measurable costs or damages are
imposed on TAC2 Global.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is referred to Magistrate Judge
Christopher P. Tuite to conduct a hearing and issue a Report and Recommendation. The
hearing will be held ______________________ in the United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 12B, Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue,
Tampa, Florida 33602 or by other means as directed by Magistrate Judge Tuite.

Plaintiff is directed to immediately serve TAC2 Global with a copy of this
Order.
DONE and ORDERED this ___ day of May, 2020 at _____am/pm.

____________________________________
MARY S. SCRIVEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DM_US 168402517-2.099922.0012
Case 8:20-cv-01003-MSS-CPT     Document 8     Filed 05/06/20     Page 29 of 29 PageID 191

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.376843.8.0.pdf

Size

225,829 bytes

SHA-256

01e3c2f6fa11bad682a4eafb4fa6d923bf957220eff8b4e9e30bc916971f2cc3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.376843.8.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)