Tag: irreparable harm

Trademark Infringement – The Irreparable Harm and Inadequate Remedy at Law Injunction Elements

The Northern District of Illinois recently pronounced the governing standards for injunctive relief in a franchise dispute between rival auto repair shops.

SBA-TLC, LLC v. Merlin Corp., 2015 WL 6955493 (N.D.Ill. 2015) sued its former franchisee for trademark infringement after the franchisee continued using the plaintiff’s signage, logo and design plans after the franchisor declared a default and terminated the franchise.

The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction based on the following black-letter basics:

To obtain injunctive relief, the moving party must show (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) the movant is likely to suffer irreparable harm if an injunction isn’t issued, (3) the balance of harms tips in the movant’s favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

To win a trademark infringement suit, the plaintiff must show (1) a protectable trademark, and (2) a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the defendant’s product. In the injunction context, the trademark plaintiff merely has to show a “better than negligible chance of winning on the merits.

The plaintiff here introduced evidence that it properly registered its trademarks and that the defendant continued to use them after plaintiff declared a franchise agreement default. This satisfied the likelihood of success prong.

The court next found the plaintiff satisfied the irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law injunction elements. Irreparable harm means harm that is not fully compensable (or avoidable) by a final judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.  To show an inadequate remedy at law, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove that a remedy is entirely worthless.  Instead, the plaintiff needs to show that a money damage award is “seriously deficient.”

Trademark cases especially lend themselves to court findings of irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law since it is difficult to monetize the impact trademark infringement has on a given brand. Lost profits and loss of goodwill are factors that signal irreparable harm in trademark disputes. The court further found that since it’s difficult to accurately measure economic damages in trademark cases, an inadequate remedy at law could be presumed.

Finally, the court found that the balance of harms weighed in favor of an injunction. It found the potential harm to plaintiff if an injunction did not issue would be great since the defendant franchisee could continue to use plaintiff’s marks and financially harm the plaintiff. By contrast, harm to the franchisee defendant was relatively minimal since the franchisee could easily be compensated for any lost profits sustained during the period of the injunction.

Take-away:

SBA=TLC provides a succinct summary of governing injunction standards under FRCP 65. The case stands for proposition that the irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law prongs of injunctive relief are presumed in the trademark infringement context given the intrinsic difficulties in quantifying infringement damages.

 

 

Record Company’s Injunction Attempt Against Rock Band Fails

Victory Records’ attempt to prevent the rock band A Day to Remember (ADTR) from releasing an album in the Fall of 2013 failed because it couldn’t establish the elements for injunctive relief under Illinois law.

In Woodard v. Victory Records, 2013 WL 5517926 (N.D.Ill. 2013), the defendant record company (“Victory” or the “Record Company”) sued to prevent the Florida pop-punk quartet from self releasing its Common Courtesy record.

The Court denied the Victory’s request to block the band’s album release.

To get a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must show:

  • irreparable harm,
  • an inadequate remedy at law,
  • a likelihood of success on the merits;
  • the harm that will result if the injunction isn’t entered will outweigh harm to the opposing side if the injunction is entered.  *2.   

Victory established a likelihood of success on the merits.  “This is not a high burden.”  All the movant must show is a “better than negligible” chance of winning on the merits.

The crux of the dispute was the parties’ differing interpretations of the word “album” as it was used in the contract. 

The Court found the term ambiguous and each side’s interpretation was plausible.  ( *3).  Because each side’s reading of the contract had facial validity, the Record Company demonstrated a better than negligible chance of prevailing on the merits.

Irreparable harm denotes “likely” injury that is “real” and “immediate”, not “conjectural or hypothetical.”

The movant has to show money damages would not adequately remedy the harm suffered without an injunction.  ( *3).

Here, Victory couldn’t establish likely irreparable harm or an inadequate remedy at law because ADTR was a known quantity. 

ADTR had released several successful albums under the Victory label.  Because of this, Victory could gauge any lost profits resulting from ADTR’s independent album release. 

This ability to extrapolate the album’s likely profits from ADTR’s prior sales meant Victory had an adequate legal remedy (e.g. a suit for money damages) for breach of the recording contract. 

The Court also rejected Victory’s reputational harm argument – that if ADTR is allowed to self-release an album and the album is flawed and doesn’t sell, Victory’s reputation will suffer.  The Court held that since ADTR was perennially successful and had a wide fan base, it wasn’t likely that ADTR would intentionally (or not) release an inferior music product. (*4-5).

The balance of harms element also favored ADTR.  The Court applied a “sliding scale” analysis: the more likely a movant is to win, the less the balance of harms must weigh in the movant’s favor (and vice versa). (*2).

 Here, the Record Company had a lost profits breach of contract remedy if the band breached the recording contract.  In contrast, if ADTR was prevented from releasing its album with no end in sight to the underlying litigation, the band’s fan support could likely erode in an ultra-competitive industry (the music business) resulting in definite financial harm to the band.  (*5)

Take-aways:

Victory Records illustrates that injunctive relief is difficult to get where the moving party has a clear legal remedy.

 The Court found that past album sales provided a basis for lost profits and a sufficient legal remedy if the band breached the recording contract.

 

Facebook Announcement Doesn’t Equal Improper Client Solicitation: Mass. Court

In Invidia v. DiFonzo, 30 Mass. L.Rptr 390 (2012), a hair salon sued a former stylist for breaching a non-compete and non-solicitation clause in her employment agreement.  The Court examined whether the new employer’s posting a job change on defendant’s Facebook page and “friending” former clients was improper solicitation.

The employment contract contained a non-compete spanning two years and 10 miles and a two-year non-solicitation clause.  After she resigned, the defendant went to work for a competing salon less than two miles away.  Her new employer then posted an announcement on its Facebook page, promoting defendant’s new affiliation with the competing salon. 

The plaintiff saw the Facebook activity and sued.  The Court denied the request for injunctive relief because plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

Rules/Reasoning:

A preliminary injunction plaintiff must show (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; and (3) the risk of irreparable harm to the movant outweighs similar risk of harm to the opposing party.  *2. 

Massachusetts courts scrutinize non-competition agreements because they often result from unequal bargaining power.  A covenant not to compete is enforceable only if it’s necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, is reasonably limited in time and space, and supported by the public interest.  *4.

The Non-Compete Provision

The salon plaintiff failed to show that it was likely to succeed on the merits on the noncompete because it was questionable whether a two-year/10-mile restriction was necessary to protect plaintiff’s interest and because plaintiff failed to show that its “legitimate business interest” – the goodwill which plaintiff claimed it lost – belonged entirely to plaintiff.  *5.  

The Court noted that in the hairdressing business, goodwill often belongs to the individual stylist rather than the salon.  That is, customers likely patronize a salon for a specific hairdresser; not because they like the salon itself. 

The Court also found the plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm, since plaintiff could clearly quantify its damages.  The Court pointed out that plaintiff offered evidence of the number of clients that it lost since defendant left (90) and the average dollar amount spent ($87.16) by each lost client.  This militated against a finding of irreparable harm.  *5.

The Non-Solicitation Clause

Turning to the non-solicitation clause, the Court found that the Facebook announcement of defendant’s affiliation with the new salon (by that salon) did not equate to active solicitation.*5.  

Nor did the defendant’s sending  friend requests to eight clients of plaintiff amount to a breach of the non-solicitation provision. 

The employer did however have some circumstantial evidence in support of its solicitation argument.  It offered documents at the injunction hearing that demonstrated that some 90 salon clients had cancelled (without rescheduling) appointments in the two-plus months since defendant’s departure. *6.  Yet the Court wasn’t prepared to find this a breach of the anti-solicitation provision.  The Court stressed that no current or former clients testified that defendant contacted them and solicited their business.

Take-aways: A third party’s passive Facebook posting and direct Facebook friends requests are not enough to establish solicitation for preliminary injunction purposes.  Instead, there must be direct evidence of active solicitation to merit injunctive relief.