| | | Injunction Type Precluding Statements/Claims TRO & Preliminary InjunctionIrreparable Harm Unfair CompetitionFalse Advertising | The magistrate judge recommended denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. "Although the evidence [plaintiff] offered supports the conclusion that [plaintiff] suffered harm . . . related generally to the advertisements accusing [plaintiff] of tricking consumers, the extent of [plaintiff's] losses attributable to the [defendant's social media] post is unclear. . . . Given that the challenged statement is now difficult to access and given that [plaintiff] has not presented evidence suggesting [defendant] continues to make the same claims in other venues, the likelihood of ongoing harm flowing from the letter appears minimal. Moreover, the extent of harm to [plaintiff] is reduced now that the critical [Medicare Advantage annual] enrollment period has ceased. Finally, [plaintiff's] claim of irreparable harm is undermined by its failure to include [defendant's allegedly false or misleading social media] post in its initial motion for preliminary injunction [against other co-defendants]." (page 24) | | | | Injunction Type Precluding Statements/Claims TRO & Preliminary InjunctionBalance of Harms Unfair CompetitionFalse Advertising | The magistrate judge recommended denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the balance of harms weighed against injunctive relief. "[The balance of harms] is closely tied to [plaintiff's] likelihood of success on the merits. If [defendant's social media] post remains published, [plaintiff] may suffer some ongoing harm to its business reputation. But if [defendant's] statements prove true, that hardship would be one [plaintiff] brought upon itself, and any preliminary injunction would impose hardship on [defendant] by forcing it to remove protected speech from the public sphere. On the other hand, if [defendant's] statements prove false or misleading, [defendant] would suffer little hardship by removing the post, as it has no right to spread false messages in violation of the Lanham Act. Under these circumstances, I find the balance of equities roughly equivalent." (page 26) | | | | Injunction Type Precluding Statements/Claims TRO & Preliminary InjunctionPublic Interests (TRO & Prelim Injunction) Unfair CompetitionFalse Advertising | The magistrate judge recommended denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the public interest weighed against injunctive relief. "[B]ecause it is not obvious that [defendant's] advertisements mislead consumers, it is not clear that issuance of an injunction would do anything to prevent consumer confusion. . . . [Further,] [i]f this court issues an injunction against speech that ultimately proves to be truthful, that interest will be harmed. Under these circumstances, I find the public interest better served by permitting parties to litigate their dispute without a preliminary injunction to permit the court to determine definitively whether [defendant's] statements were false." (page 26) |
|
