Opinion ID: 2765395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying Pom Wonderful’s motion for a preliminary injunction because it made a clear error in its determination of no likelihood of confusion.12 Because the district court’s likelihood-of-success 12 In reaching this conclusion we express no opinion on the ultimate merits of the case. See, e.g., Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir. 1999). 26 POM WONDERFUL V. HUBBARD determination tainted its evaluation of the remaining three Winter elements, we reverse and remand this case with instructions that the district court consider whether Pom Wonderful can meet its burden of proving that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of the equities tips in its favor, and that injunctive relief would further the public interest. REVERSED and REMANDED.