Milton Springut, New York Law Journal
September 13, 2016
The tools included in an intellectual property litigator’s toolbox often includes a motion for a preliminary injunction. Such a motion can be a quick way to obtain relief from infringement, and in many cases the litigation ends after a decision on such a motion. But such motions have their own particular unique requirements, and recently federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have been more skeptical of such motions.
Our recent article in the New York Law Journal, Thanks but No Thanks: ‘Citigroup’ and Lessons on Trademark Litigation, discusses a recent trademark case brought by a major bank. The New York federal court’s decision denying the motion sheds light on several aspects of preliminary injunction motions in the context of intellectual property cases. We discuss (a) the need to demonstrate irreparable harm; (b) the need to quickly seek preliminary relief, sometimes even before infringement commences, and (c) the need to examine any prior judicial/administrative record pertaining to obtaining protection of the asserted intellectual property.
Click here to get the full article