about Coca-Cola’s claims regarding the presence of calcium and magnesium in Powerade ION4, but it has made virtually identical claims about calcium and magnesium in its own Gatorade Endurance Formula. Courts in this Circuit and elsewhere have routinely found that a plaintiffs misconduct relates to the subject matter of its claims where, as here, the plaintiff has engaged in the same kind of behavior that it challenges. See, e.g., Ultreo, Inc., 574 F.Supp.2d at 354-55; Nikkal Indus., Ltd. v. Salton, Inc., 735 F.Supp. 1227, 1238 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (explaining that equitable relief would be inappropriate where plaintiff engaged in the “very same conduct” it had chai lenged); Haagen-Dazs, 493 F.Supp. at 76; see also Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. v. Frisby, 163 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1380 (N.D.Ga.2001) (<HOLDING>); Salomon Smith Barney Inc. v. Vockel, 137
holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it recognizing that a stay contained in anex parte order did not serve to suspend the effectiveness of the restraining notice otherwise any judgment debtor could obtain such an order without notice to the court that a restraining notice had been served or to the judgment creditor and recover his property theretofore properly made the subject of the restraining notice holding temporary restraining order void because court waived bond holding that morgan stanley is estopped from seeking a restraining order against competitive conduct which it admits to engaging in holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order