Opinion ID: 172018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preliminary Injunction Standard of Review

Text: To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish that four equitable factors weigh in its favor: (1) it is substantially likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) its threatened injury outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. See Westar Energy, Inc. v. Lake, 552 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.2009). On appeal, Midwest challenges only the district court's determination that Beltronics has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its claim for trademark infringement. See Lanham Act, § 32, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1114. We review the grant of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. See Pac. Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City, 414 F.3d 1221, 1231 (10th Cir.2005). A district court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law or makes clearly erroneous factual findings. Wyandotte Nation v. Sebelius, 443 F.3d 1247, 1252 (10th Cir.2006). Moreover, because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal. Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir.2003); see also United States ex rel. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Enter. Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 883 F.2d 886, 888-89 (10th Cir.1989) (stating that a preliminary injunction constitutes drastic relief to be provided with caution ... [and] should be granted only in cases where the necessity for it is clearly established.); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC, 500 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir.2007) (In general, a preliminary injunction ... is the exception rather than the rule.) (quotations omitted). We have also explained that injunctions that disrupt the status quo are disfavored and must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1259 (10th Cir.2005) (quotations omitted). An injunction disrupts the status quo when it changes the last peaceable uncontested status existing between the parties before the dispute developed. Id. at 1260. In such instances, the district court may not grant a preliminary injunction unless the plaintiff make[s] a strong showing both with regard to the likelihood of success on the merits and with regard to the balance of harms. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 976 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc). This heightened standard accords with the historic purpose of the preliminary injunction, which is to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held. Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). See also O Centro, 389 F.3d at 977 (stating that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to assure that the non-movant does not take unilateral action which would prevent the court from providing effective relief to the movant should the movant prevail on the merits). Midwest argues that the district court's injunction disrupted the status quo between the parties because it compelled Midwest to cease selling Beltronics products on eBay. It thus contends that the district court was required to examine with extra scrutiny whether Beltronics is substantially likely to prevail on the merits of its trademark infringement claim. We need not decide this question, however, because even assuming the heightened standard applies in this case, Beltronics has met its burden.