Opinion ID: 786352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: legal standards and jurisdiction

Text: 28 The test for preliminary relief is a familiar one. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief. Allegheny Energy, Inc. v. DQE, Inc., 171 F.3d 153, 158 (3d Cir.1999). Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only in limited circumstances. American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir.1994) (quotation omitted). [O]ne of the goals of the preliminary injunction analysis is to maintain the status quo, defined as the last, peaceable, noncontested status of the parties. Opticians Ass'n of Am. v. Indep. Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187, 197 (3d Cir.1990) (citation and quotation omitted); see also 5 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 30:50 (4th ed. 2003) (The status quo to be preserved is not the situation of contested rights.... In a trademark case, [it] is the situation prior to the time the junior user began use of its contested mark: the last peaceable, non-contested status.). 29 We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or a clear mistake in the consideration of proof. Winback, 42 F.3d at 1427 (quotation omitted). [A]ny determination that is a prerequisite to the issuance of an injunction ... is reviewed according to the standard applicable to that particular determination. Id. (second alteration in original, quotation omitted). Thus, we exercise plenary review over the district court's conclusions of law and its application of law to the facts, but review its findings of fact for clear error, which occurs when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Duraco Prods., Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enters., Ltd., 40 F.3d 1431, 1438 (3d Cir.1994) (citations and quotation omitted). Despite oft repeated statements that the issuance of a preliminary injunction rests in the discretion of the trial judge[,] whose decisions will be reversed only for `abuse,' a court of appeals must reverse if the district court has proceeded on the basis of an erroneous view of the applicable law. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, 1242 (3d Cir.1983) (quotation omitted). 30 The district court had original jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338, and we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a).