In a Christmas Eve decision, the Third Circuit partially reversed a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction regarding "store brand" sucralose sweeteners.  McNeil Nutritionals, makers of Splenda^®, brought suit against a company that produces several different sucralose products that bear the store's name and compete with Splenda^®.  The district court found McNeil not likely to succeed on the merits of the case, as the presence of the store's name on the competing product obviated any likely confusion.  As a result, the district court denied preliminary injunctive relief.

The Third Circuit partially reversed, finding that one of the three packaging configurations sold was, at least preliminarily, likely to be confused with McNeil's Splenda^® trade dress.  As a result, for this packaging, the court reversed the denial of the injunction with regard to this packaging, but affirmed with regard to the other two.

More detail of McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC after the jump.

[More]

In a decision rendered yesterday, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a trade dress infringement case.  The Tenth Circuit did join multiple other circuits in holding that post-sale confusion can be relevant to a claim of trade dress infringement.

Evidence of post-sale confusion, however, was still insufficient evidence to justify a preliminary injunction.  Assessing the district court's application of the traditional four-factor test considered when injunctions are requested, the court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiff did not make a "strong showing" of likelihood of success on the merits, and that the balance of equities did not favor the plaintiff.  Accordingly, the denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed.

More detail of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC after the jump.

[More]

In a decision today, the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit over the trade dress of two competing energy drinks.  The court held the district court's conclusion that success was likely on the merits was clearly erroneous, largely because of the dissimilarity of the two trade dresses.

More detail of Hansen Beverage Co. v. Nat'l Beverage Corp. after the jump.

[More]