Justice Marguerite Grays

Plaintiff moved for injunctive relief enjoining defendants from operating two competing restaurants under a nearly identical name as plaintiff’s. Plaintiff claimed it owned and operated a restaurant named "Chicken House" since 1986. It alleged defendants opened the same business, under a nearly identical name four doors away from plaintiff’s, selling the same food, with the same menu at lower prices immediately after defendant Xhumba, plaintiff’s ex-employee, was terminated. Plaintiff argued defendants intended to interfere with its business and deceive plaintiff’s customers by capitalizing on its good will and reputation. Defendants contended they no longer intended to use the name "Chicken House, and changed the look of their menu. The court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief as there was no showing the equities tipped in its favor as the record failed to show that any injury plaintiff may sustain would be more burdensome to it than the harm likely to be caused by defendant by imposition of an injunction preventing them from operating their business. Also, it noted menu listings were outside the scope of copyright as they lacked the requisite element of originality.