Opinion ID: 691765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Taco Bell's Motions for Summary Judgment and a Preliminary Injunction

Text: Taco Bell urges us to enter summary judgment in Taco Bell's favor. We decline to do so. The district court has yet to consider Taco Bell's counterclaim based on infringement of Make a Run for the Border. In addition, disputed factual issues remain as to whether the extent of Taco Bell's use of Run for the Border before HGI's use of that mark was sufficient to establish a connection between Taco Bell and the mark. Finally, HGI's evidence regarding the differences in Taco Bell's use of Run for the Border and Make a Run for the Border raised genuine issues of fact with respect to Taco Bell's tacking theory.
The district court's denial of Taco Bell's motion for a preliminary injunction rested upon the court's summary dismissal of Taco Bell's counterclaims. Because we reverse the latter, the district court's rationale for denying Taco Bell's motion for preliminary injunction is no longer available. Accordingly, we remand the issue of the preliminary injunction for further consideration. Taco Bell asks that we direct the district court to enter the injunction. However, the district court has not made the necessary factual findings to decide whether a preliminary injunction is warranted. It made no factual finding as to the likelihood of confusion between Make a Run for the Border and Run for the Border. Moreover, because the court granted summary judgment for HGI on the merits, it did not consider the issues of irreparable harm and the relative hardships between the parties. Taco Bell and HGI point to conflicting evidence as to the harm each would suffer. The district court must determine on remand whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate based either on HGI's alleged infringement of Make a Run for the Border or Taco Bell's asserted prior use of Run for the Border.