Opinion ID: 3015539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Balance of Irreparable Harms

Text: If forced to share with a competitor the ramp it built with its own funds and for which it continues to pay Penn’s Landing Corporation for exclusive use, Ride The Ducks would suffer irreparable harm. Having to share property so vital to its business with a competitor would almost certainly diminish Ride The Ducks’s share of the amphibious tour market. We have held in other contexts that the loss of market share may be an irreparable injury. See Novartis, 290 F.3d at 596. We see no reason not to apply that rule here. By contrast, Super Ducks asserts that it has “expended considerable sums in acquiring state-of-the-art amphibious crafts” and would be unable to compete in the Philadelphia market without access to the Delaware River via the ramp, which is located in a historic area. (Br. at 23). To the extent such harm is irremediable, it must be discounted by the fact that Super Ducks has brought the harm upon itself. See Novartis, 290 F.3d at 596 (holding that “the injury a defendant might suffer if an injunction were imposed may be discounted by the fact that the defendant brought the injury upon itself”). That Super Ducks would be enjoined from invading Ride The Ducks’s property without consent cannot weigh in favor of Super Ducks. Nor can the fact that it improvidently purchased duck boats without the means to put them in the water at a desirable location. 7 The balance of irreparable harms therefore favors Ride The Ducks. In this regard we also find significant Ride The Ducks’s strong likelihood of success on the merits. Indeed, “‘[t]he more likely the plaintiff is to win, the less heavily need the balance of harms weigh in his favor.’” Id. at 597 (quoting NLRB v. Electro-Voice, Inc., 83 F.3d 1559, 1568 (7th Cir. 1996)).