THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 93 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret the standard to obtain injunctive relief for trademark infringement. The selection of decisions spans from 2003 to the date of publication.
In accordance with the principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction “must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The Supreme Court has cautioned that “[a]n injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2761 (2010) (citing Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-12 (1982)). Rather, “[i]f a less drastic remedy . . . [is] sufficient to redress [a plaintiff’s] injury, no recourse to the additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction [is] warranted.” Id. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., (Fed. Cir. 2013)