FAITH S. HOCHBERG, District Judge.
This matter having come before the Court upon this Court's January 7, 2015 Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 5) why a preliminary injunction should not issue that: (1) enjoins Defendants from using Plaintiff's trademarks, trade names, and service marks (collectively, the "Marks"); (2) requires Defendants to de-identify their offices from appearing as Coldwell Banker-affiliated brokerage firms; (3) requires Defendants to refrain from any representation to the public that Defendants are franchisees of Coldwell Banker and compels Defendants to take any affirmative action necessary to remove any use of Coldwell Banker's Marks in connection with Defendants' business; (4) requires Defendants to immediately advise all of their current clients that the Defendants are no longer associated with Coldwell Banker; (5) requires Defendants to immediately cause the local phone company and any business phone publisher to remove the Defendants from their listings as a Coldwell Banker franchisee in their next addition of any directory, including any Internet directory; (6) requires Defendants to immediately cause any webmasters or websites to remove the Marks from their websites, including social media websites, and requiring Defendants to remove the Marks from the social media sites and accounts that the Defendants control, including the Defendants' websites, including from any source code or other mechanism that directs a consumer searching for any of the Marks to the Defendants' websites; (7) orders Defendants to cease and desist using the Marks in any advertising, printed materials, or material distributed in an electronic format; and (8) orders Defendants to satisfy their other posttermination, non-monetary obligations
It appearing that Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants claiming, inter alia, that Defendants have infringed Plaintiff's Marks by displaying the Marks inside stores and on websites, among other places; and
It appearing that Defendants' submission filed in response to the Order to Show Cause contained neither a brief, nor any legal arguments or citations in opposition to Plaintiff's requested injunctive relief;
It appearing that Defendants have failed to show cause why the requested preliminary injunction should not be entered, and there is no need for a hearing in light of the lack of any legal argument made by Defendants; and
It appearing that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits; that it will be irreparably harmed in the absence of a preliminary injunction; that Defendant will not be substantially harmed by an injunction; and that the public interest supports the issuance of a preliminary injunction;
It appearing that no bond is required as it has not been shown that the preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to cease use of the Marks will cause any significant financial harm in light of the fact that no right to use the Marks has been demonstrated by Defendants in response to the January 7, 2015 Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 5);