BidZirk, LLC v. Smith
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BIDZIRK, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DANIEL G. SCHMIDT, III; JILL PATTERSON, Plaintiffs, versus PHILLIP J. SMITH, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cv-00109-HMH-WM)
February 12, 2007
March 6, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Morgan Elwell, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Phillip J. Smith, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: BidZirk, LLC, Daniel G. Schmidt, III, and Jill Patterson filed a complaint in federal district court alleging Phillip J. Smith's articles on his internet web log violated the Federal Trademark Dilution Act and state law. BidZirk moved for
preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) (2000). district appealed. We review the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, "recognizing that preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies involving the exercise of very farreaching power to be granted only sparingly and in limited Adopting court the magistrate a judge's recommendation, and the
MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d A district court abuses its discretion
335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001).
when it applies an incorrect preliminary injunction standard, rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact, or misapprehends litigation. the law with respect to underlying issues in
Quince Orchard Valley Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Hodel,
872 F.2d 75, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). In determining whether a preliminary injunction is
appropriate, we consider four factors:
(1) the likelihood of
irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the preliminary injunction is denied; (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant if the
- 2 -
requested relief is granted; (3) the likelihood the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. Rum Creek Coal "[T]he
Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 1991).
balance of harm evaluation should precede the determination of the degree by which the plaintiff must establish the likelihood of success on his part." Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med.
Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 813 (4th Cir. 1991). If, after balancing the irreparable harm to the plaintiff against the irreparable harm to the defendant, the balance tips "decidedly" in the favor of the plaintiff, a preliminary injunction would be appropriate if the plaintiff "raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation." Id. at 812-13. If the balance tips away from the
plaintiff toward equivalency, the plaintiff must demonstrate its entitlement to a preliminary injunction with "a very clear and strong case," because "if there is doubt as to the probability of plaintiff's ultimate success on the merits, the preliminary
injunction must be denied."
Id. at 813.
In light of these principles, we find no abuse of discretion and we affirm the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 3 -
- 4 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?