Temporary Restraining Order

Subscribe to Temporary Restraining Order via RSS

Ryford H. Estores, et al. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, No. 25-cv-06151, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2025) (Wood, J.).

Judge Wood denied plaintiffs’ amended motion for temporary restraining order in this design patent infringement case involving a foldable three-way mirror.

The Court held that plaintiffs misconceived their design patent’s…

Eicher Motors Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 25-cv-02937 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.).

Judge Kness denied plaintiff Eicher Motors’ motion for ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in this Schedule A trademark case, finding that the routine granting of preliminary injunctive relief without adversarial proceedings violates…

Meihua Yan v. The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 24 C 5403, (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2025) (Ellis, J.).

Judge Ellis granted in part defendant Forious’ Rule 11 motion and dismissed plaintiff Meihua Yan’s design patent infringement claims with prejudice as a sanction for a pattern of misrepresentations to the…

Venus Labs., Inc. d/b/a Earth Friendly Prods. v. Vlahakis, No. 15 C 1617, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2015) (Blakey, J.).

Judge Blakey granted plaintiff Venus Laboratories d/b/a Earth Friendly Products’ (“EFP”) motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and continued EFP’s request for a preliminary injunction (“PI”) in this Lanham Act dispute…

Dental USA, Inc. v. McClellan, No. 13 C 260, Slip OP. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2013) (Zagel, J.).

Judge Zagel granted in part plaintiff Dental USA’s motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction in this trademark and design patent infringement case.  Dental USA had a trademark for DENTAL USA, as well as POWER …

Algierz, Inc. v. The Source of Apparel, Inc., et al., No. 12 C 5361, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2012) (Chang, J.).

Judge Chang ruled upon plaintiff Algierz’s motion to extend temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) and for preliminary injunctions (“PIs”) in this patent case as follows:

  • The Court denied to extend the TRO

…

Bernina of Am., Inc. v. Imageline, Inc., No. 10 C 44917, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur sua sponte issued an order in response to defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The Court cautioned that even though individual defendant Riddick was the sole officer and employee of each co-defendant, the corporate defendants required representation because a corporation cannot represent itself pro se.
The Court gave defendants time to identify whether Riddick was a lawyer and to find new counsel, if not. Until that time, the corporate defendants were treated as non-responding parties to plaintiff’s injunction motions.
…
Continue Reading Individual Defendant May Not Appear Pro Se on Behalf of His Related Party Co-Defendants

Scala’s Original Beef & Sausage Co., LLC v. Alvarez d/b/a Michaelangelo Foods, No. 09 C 7353 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2009 (Dow, J).
Judge Dow denied plaintiff Scala’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in this Lanham Act case regarding Scala’s and Scala’s Preferred marks for giardiniera.
Likelihood of Success
Scala’s made a “fairly strong showing” that defendants’ (collectively “Michaelangelo Foods”) labels using the marks were likely to cause consumer confusion. Scala’s also met its burden to show some likelihood of success that its trademark license to Michaelangelo Foods was terminable at will, even though the license lacked a termination provision. Finally, Scala’s showed some likelihood of success as to its argument that licensee estoppel barred Michaelangelo Foods’ challenges to Scala’s marks. The Court noted, however, that at the early stages of the litigation it appeared that Michaelangelo Foods might be able to overcome licensee estoppel upon equitable grounds.
Irreparable Harm
Irreparable harm is presumed in trademark cases, and Michaelangelo Foods did not challenge the presumption. Instead, Michaelangelo Foods argued that Scala’s harm was not sufficiently immediate because Scala’s was not selling competing products. But the fact that Scala’s did not make a product, did not eliminate the harm. Scala’s was harmed by not being able to control Michaelangelo Foods’ quality. Additionally, Scala’s was using the marks with other products.
But the Court noted that the facts of this case mitigated the strength of Scala’s irreparable harm. In particular, Scala’s licensed the marks at least in part because Scala’s was unable to consistently pay suppliers or deliver products to its customers. And Michaelangelo Foods took substantial steps to fix those relationships, thereby enhancing the marks’ value.
Balance of Harm
The Court held that Michaelangelo Foods would be harmed by a TRO. A TRO would allow the sale of existing inventory, but individual defendant invested a significant portion of his savings into the business and the business had relatively low profits. A TRO would, therefore, likely do substantial damage to Michaelangelo Foods’ finances. This financial harm combined with Michaelangelo Foods’ efforts to rebuild the marks and the business tipped the balance of harm in Michaelangelo Foods’ favor.
Conclusion
While it was a close call, the Court denied a TRO. In view of the importance of a decision to both parties, the Court set an expedited discovery, briefing and hearing schedule for Scala’s preliminary injunction motion.
…
Continue Reading Close Balance of Harms Prevents TRO, but Expedited Discovery Granted