Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 175 views

    MySQL V Progress Software

    Uploaded by

    propertyintangible
    The court considered a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by MySQL AB against Progress Software Corporation and its subsidiary NuSphere Corporation. The court found that MySQL demonstrated a likelihood of success on its trademark breach of contract claim and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Progress from using the MySQL trademark. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence for a preliminary injunction regarding Progress's use of MySQL's software under the General Public License.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MySQL V Progress Software

    Uploaded by

    propertyintangible
    175 views11 pages
    The court considered a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by MySQL AB against Progress Software Corporation and its subsidiary NuSphere Corporation. The court found that MySQL demonstrated a likelihood of success on its trademark breach of contract claim and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Progress from using the MySQL trademark. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence for a preliminary injunction regarding Progress's use of MySQL's software under the General Public License.

    Original Description:

    opinion

    Original Title

    MySQL v Progress Software

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court considered a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by MySQL AB against Progress Software Corporation and its subsidiary NuSphere Corporation. The court found that MySQL demonstrated a likelihood of success on its trademark breach of contract claim and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Progress from using the MySQL trademark. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence for a preliminary injunction regarding Progress's use of MySQL's software under the General Public License.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    175 views11 pages

    MySQL V Progress Software

    Uploaded by

    propertyintangible
    The court considered a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by MySQL AB against Progress Software Corporation and its subsidiary NuSphere Corporation. The court found that MySQL demonstrated a likelihood of success on its trademark breach of contract claim and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Progress from using the MySQL trademark. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence for a preliminary injunction regarding Progress's use of MySQL's software under the General Public License.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 11

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER February 28, 2002 SARIS, U.S.D.J.

    Defendant/counter-plaintiff MySQL AB (MySQL) has moved for a preliminary injunction asking this Court to enjoin plaintiffs/counter-defendants Progress Software Corporation and its subsidiary NuSphere Corporation (collectively, Progress) from, among other things, sublicensing or distributing the MySQL program and from using the MySQL mark. The factors governing the award of a preliminary injunction are well known: (1) the movants likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm; (3) a balancing of the relevant equities; and (4) the effect on the public interest. Cir. 1995). After a hearing and review of the record, and for the See Campbell Soup Co. v. Giles, 47 F.3d 467, 470 (1st

    PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MySQL AB, et al., Defendants.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-11031-PBS

    reasons stated in Court, the Court finds that MySQL has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on that portion breach of contract claim that concerns its trademark. Specifically, MySQL has demonstrated (1) that the agreement between the parties was an interim agreement that terminated after August 2000; and (2) that Progress violated Paragraph 6 of that agreement by using the MySQL trademark after the termination and by using an unauthorized combination trademark. Continued

    use of the trademark will cause MySQL irreparable harm as a matter of law. See Digital Equipment Corp. v. Altavista

    Technology, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 456, 472 (D. Mass. 1997) (citing Camel Hair and Cashmere, Inc. v. Assoc. Dry Goods Corp., 799 F.2d 6, 14-15 (1st Cir. 1986)). Finally, the balance of

    harms tips in MySQLs favor with regard to use of the MySQL mark. Accordingly, the Court orders that Progress be preliminarily enjoined, pending a trial on the merits, from: (1) Promoting or selling any products and services

    using the MySQL mark in any form; (2) Registering or using domain names that contain the

    MySQL mark; and, (3) mark. Operating websites that use any form of the MySQL

    Progress may, however, state that its product operates with the MySQL program. days. Progress shall comply with this order within 45

    MySQL shall post a bond of $25,000.00.

    With respect to the General Public License (GPL), MySQL has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties

    experts raise a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a derivative or an independent and separate work under GPL 2. After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better argument Moreover, I am not

    here, but the matter is one of fair dispute.

    persuaded based on this record that the release of the Gemini source code in July 2001 didnt cure the breach. In any event, even if MySQL has shown a likelihood of success on these points, it has not demonstrated that it will suffer any irreparable harm during the pendency of the suit, particularly in light of the sworn statement that all source code for Gemini has been disclosed and the stipulation, given by Progress during the hearing, that the end use license for commercial users will be withdrawn. Finally, because the product

    line using MySQL is a significant portion of NuSpheres business, Progress has demonstrated that the balance of harms tips in its favor regarding the use of the MySQL program under the GPL. ORDER For the reasons set forth above, MySQLs Motion for

    Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

    _________________________ PATTI B. SARIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    Publisher Information Note* This page is not part of the opinion as entered by the court. The docket information provided on this page is for the benefit of publishers of these opinions. U.S. District Court - Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 01-CV-11031 Progress Software, et al v. MySQL AB, et al Filed: 06/18/01 Assigned to: Judge Patti B. Saris Jury demand: Defendant Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 190 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Diversity Dkt# in other court: None PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION Plaintiff Catherine M. McGrath Mark Schonfeld Andres N. Madrid Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-895-2000 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION Plaintiff Catherine M. McGrath Mark Schonfeld Andres N. Madrid Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-895-2000 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION Plaintiff Catherine M. McGrath Mark Schonfeld Andres N. Madrid Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP 900 Third Avenue Peter Brown Peter Brown Peter Brown

    New York, NY 10022 212-895-2000 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION Plaintiff Catherine M. McGrath Mark Schonfeld Andres N. Madrid Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-895-2000 NUSPHERE CORPORATION Plaintiff (See above) Peter Brown Peter Brown

    Catherine M. McGrath (See above) Mark Schonfeld (See above) Andres N. Madrid (See above)

    NUSPHERE CORPORATION Plaintiff (See above)

    Peter Brown

    Catherine M. McGrath (See above) Mark Schonfeld (See above) Andres N. Madrid (See above)

    NUSPHERE CORPORATION Plaintiff (See above)

    Peter Brown

    Catherine M. McGrath (See above) Mark Schonfeld (See above) Andres N. Madrid (See above)

    NUSPHERE CORPORATION Plaintiff (See above)

    Peter Brown

    Catherine M. McGrath (See above) Mark Schonfeld (See above) Andres N. Madrid (See above)

    MYSQL AB Defendant

    Brendan P. Mitchell Rubin and Rudman 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 617-330-7000

    Gary C. Crossen Rubin & Rudman, LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 617-330-7000 DAVID AXMARK Defendant Brendan P. Mitchell (See above)

    Gary C. Crossen (See above)

    MICHAEL WIDENIUS Defendant

    Brendan P. Mitchell (See above)

    Gary C. Crossen (See above)

    MYSQL AB Counter-Claimant

    Brendan P. Mitchell Rubin and Rudman 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 617-330-7000 Gary C. Crossen Rubin & Rudman, LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 617-330-7000 William F. Ryan, Jr.

    Lisa A. Kershner Steven E. Tiller Ilana Subar Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP Seven Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 410-347-8700 Lisa A. Kershner Steven E. Tiller Ilana Subar Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP Seven Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 410-347-8700 Lisa A. Kershner Steven E. Tiller Ilana Subar Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP Seven Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 410-347-8700 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION Counter-Defendant Catherine M. McGrath Mark Schonfeld Andres N. Madrid Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-895-2000 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION Counter-Defendant Peter Brown Peter Brown

    Catherine M. McGrath Mark Schonfeld Andres N. Madrid Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-895-2000 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION Counter-Defendant Catherine M. McGrath Mark Schonfeld Andres N. Madrid Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-895-2000 PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION Counter-Defendant Catherine M. McGrath Mark Schonfeld Andres N. Madrid Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-895-2000 NUSPHERE CORPORATION Peter Brown Counter-Defendant (See above) Catherine M. McGrath (See above) Mark Schonfeld (See above) Andres N. Madrid (See above) Peter Brown Peter Brown

    NUSPHERE CORPORATION

    Peter Brown

    10

    Counter-Defendant

    (See above)

    Catherine M. McGrath (See above) Mark Schonfeld (See above) Andres N. Madrid (See above)

    NUSPHERE CORPORATION Peter Brown Counter-Defendant (See above) Catherine M. McGrath (See above) Mark Schonfeld (See above) Andres N. Madrid (See above)

    NUSPHERE CORPORATION Peter Brown Counter-Defendant (See above) Catherine M. McGrath (See above) Mark Schonfeld (See above) Andres N. Madrid (See above)

    11

    You might also like