F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Nov ember 18, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1115 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 01 80 4- CV-ORL-2 2- JGG
CHOPPERS , INC., W ILLIAM DAVID LANE, Pl ai nti ffsCo unt er -D ef

en dants App el la nt s,
ve rs us RUSKIN C. PASS ARO, JENNA SCIM ONE, FACTORY DEFECT, INC., SO UT HE AS T A PPA RE L, IN C. D ef en dants Co unt er -C la im an tsApp el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 18, 200 5)2

Be fo re BL A CK , CA RN E S an d B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: On D ecem

ber 10, 2004, the plaintiffs, W illiam David Lane and Choppers Inc. , f iled a com

plaint against the defendants, Ruskin C. P assaro, Jenna Scim one, Fa ct or y D ef ec t, I nc . , and S outhe as t Appare l, I nc . , se ek ing dam ag es and a pr el im inary

inj unc tio n. T he pla int if

fs sou ght to pr ev en t the de fe ndants f ro m selling clot hing that allegedly display ed the plaintiffs’ tradem arks and copyrighted
ar tw ork. T he pla int if

fs a sse rt ed

se ve ra l f ed er al c la im s a ga ins t the de fe ndants : pa ssi ng o ff

, f al se de sig na tio n of

or igi n, and f

al se de sc ri pti on, in vio la tio n of 15 U. S. C. § 112 5(a)( 1); diluti on of a fam ous m ark, in viol ation of 15 U.S .C. § 1 12 5( c); an d c op yrig ht in fri ng em en t, i n v io la ti on of 1 7 U.S.C. § 10 6 e t s eq . A ddi tio na lly , the pla int if fs a sse rt ed

se ve ra l c la im s ba se d onF lor ida law : tra de
nam e infringem ent; injury to busi ness reputation and dilut ion; u nautho rized publ ic at ionof

nam e or li ke ne ss; unf

ai r co m pe tit ion ; m isa

ppr opr ia tio n; and t ortio us in te rfer en ce wi th pro sp ect iv e b us in es s re la ti on s. O n January

31, 200 5, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d L an e’ s and C hopp er s’ m oti on fo r a pr el im inary

inj unc tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t the pla int if fs ha d f ai le d to show a substantial lik elihoodof success on the m erits of their cla im s and had fa ile d to sho wthat the y

w oul d su ff

er ir re para ble inj ur y if the inj unc tio n w as not3

issued. The plaintiffs appeal the denial of their m otion for a prelim inary in jun ct io n. Th is Co urt h as juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 2( a)(1 ). T o ob ta in a

pr el im inary

inj unc tio n, L an e an d C hopp er s m ust sho wthat: 1) the y have asub stanti al li ke lih ood of suc ce ss o n th e m er its of

a t l ea st o ne of

the
ca use s of a ct ionthe y

have a sse rt ed ; 2) the y

w ill suf fe r ir re para ble inj ur y if the inj unc tio n is not

iss ue d; 3 ) the thr eate ne d in j ur y outw ei ghs w ha te ve r da m ag e the pr opos ed inj unc tio n m ay

c au se to the de fe ndants ; and 4 ) if iss ue d, the inj unc tio n
w oul d no t be a dve rs e to the pub lic int er es t. S ee S ie ge l v. L ep or e, 234 F
. 3d 1 163, 11 78 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc ). W e generally

reviewa district court’ s denial of a m otion for a prelim inary inj unc tio n on ly

f or an a buse of dis cr et ion
. S ee D el taA ir L ine s, I nc . v. A ir

L ine Pilots Ass’ n, Int’ l, 238 F. 3d 13 00, 1308 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). D eterm ination s of law
m ad e in th e co ur se of d en y in g apre li m in ary in jun ct io n a re re vi ewedde no vo . Bai le y v. Gu lf C oa stTran sp ., Inc ., 28 0 F .3d13 33 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Finding s of fac t are review ed for cle ar e rror. Cum ulus Media, Inc. , v. Clear Ch an ne l Co m

m c’ns , 30 4 F .3d11 67 , 11 71 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). O n a ppe al , L an e an d C hopp er s arg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it fo und that 1) the pla int if

fs did not sho wali ke lih ood of

suc ce ss o n th e m er its of their case; 2) the defendants m ay have been entitled to deal with the good s at4

issue; and 3 ) the plaintiffs did not show that they would suffer ir

repara ble harm
w ith out the r eque ste d in

j unc tio n. L an e an d C hopp er s de ny the e xis te nc e of

any li cen se ag reem en t b et ween th em an d t he de fen da nt s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing L an e’ s and Ch oppe rs ’ m oti on f

or apr el im inary

inj unc tio n, ba se d onit s r ea soni ng tha t:

“ [f ] ro m the e vid en ce and arg um en ts p re se nte d, the Co urt c an not de te rm ine
w he the r D ef

en dants are a ct

ua lly vio la tin g P la int if

fs ’ r igh ts, or

w he the r, ins te ad , thi s c as e inv olv es asoure d bu sin es s arr an ge m en t un de r w hic h D ef en dants r et ai n
som e rights to deal with the good s at issue.” The plaintiffs pre sented to the court an affidavit from Lane, which states that Passaro ac quired the plaint iffs’ good s from the m anufacturer

and resold them to the pla int if

fs a t a pr of it, w ith out

L an e’ s kn ow le dge or

c onse nt. L an e’ s a ff

idavit furthe r state s th at

S ci m one use d C hopp er s’ I nte rn et sto re to se t up w hol es al e accounts without Lane’ s knowledge or consent. T he defendants presented af fi da vit s f ro m P as saro and S ci m one , w hic h st at e that P as saro c re at ed S outhe as t Appare l and F ac tor

y D ef ec t i n c ont em

platio n of abus ine ss a gr ee m en t w iththe plaintiffs’ knowledge and consent. The defendants also sub m itted a copy of a phot ogr ap h po ste d onthe pla int if fs ’ W eb sit e, in w hic h S ci m one m ode ls o ne of the pla int if fs ’ shi rt s. G ive n th e co nf lic tin g e vid en ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse5

its dis cr et ionin fi ndi ng tha t the pla int if fs have not

asho w n ali ke lih ood of

suc ce ss on the m er its of

the ir c as e. T he pla int if

fs m ay pr ev ai l at tri al , but

that r em ai ns t o be see n. AFFIR MED.