Injunctive relief has long been recognized as “the remedy of choice” for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1116) because “there is no adequate remedy at law for the injury caused by a defendant’s continuing infringement.” Century 21 Real Estate v. Sandlin. As such, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has repeatedly stated that in determining the availability of injunctive relief, “irreparable injury may be presumed from a showing of likelihood of success on the merits.” GoTo.com, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co..
The Supreme Court’s 2006 opinion, eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L.L.C., overruled the presumption in favor of injunctive relief as a remedy for patent infringement. Thus, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must meet the traditional four-factor test, demonstrating: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
