United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Euro-Pro Operating LLC's ("Defendant" or "Euro Pro") Emergency Motion For Stay of Preliminary Injunction Order Pending Appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c). (ECF No. 57). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is denied.
On May 15, 2014, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 53) and Order (ECF No. 54) granting Plaintiff Groupe SEB USA, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff" or "SEB") Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 3). Said Memorandum Opinion and Order are incorporated herein. To summarize, the Court found that Euro-Pro made false advertisements about Plaintiff's products in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and engaged in common law unfair competition under Pennsylvania law. Specifically, the Court found that Defendant's Shark 405 made literally false statements regarding Plaintiff's Rowenta DW5080, and Defendant's Shark 505 made literally false statements regarding Plaintiff's Rowenta DW9080. As a result, the Court entered an Order enjoining Euro-Pro from further engaging in false advertising, and required that Euro-Pro place stickers over or otherwise cover the literally false statements on the Shark 405 and Shark 505. The Court further Ordered Euro-Pro to remove any hang tags on the Shark 405 or Shark 505 that contain the literally false statements.
That same day, Euro-Pro filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 56). On May 19, 2014, Euro-Pro filed the pending motion. (ECF No. 57). The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. (ECF Nos. 58, 60).
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) provides that, when "an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment... denying an injunction, " a court, in its discretion, "may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party." Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C) provides that the party seeking an "order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending" must "ordinarily move first in the district court" for such relief. Both Rules are generally governed by the same factors:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).
"Although these are the same factors the Court considers in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, an applicant seeking a stay has, relatively speaking, more difficulty establishing the first factor, likelihood of success on the merits, due to the difference in procedural posture." Dehainaut v. California Univ. of Pennsylvania, 2011 WL 3810132, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2011). Consequently, the moving party "must ordinarily demonstrate... that there is a likelihood of reversal." Id. (quoting Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153-154 (6th Cir. 1991). Moreover, "even if an [applicant] demonstrates irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the [adverse party] if a stay is granted, he is still required to show, at a minimum, serious questions going ...