Opinion ID: 2994736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sliding Scale Analysis

Text: A party seeking to obtain a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) its case has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. See Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992). If the court is satisfied that these three conditions have been met, then it must consider the irreparable harm that the nonmoving party will suffer if preliminary relief is granted, balancing such harm against the irreparable harm the moving party will suffer if relief is denied. See Storck USA, L.P. v. Farley Candy Co., 14 F.3d 311, 314 (7th Cir. 1994). Finally, the court must consider the public interest (non-parties) in denying or granting the injunction. Id. The court then weighs all of these factors, sitting as would a chancellor in equity, when it decides whether to grant the injunction. Abbott Labs., 971 F.2d at 12. This process involves engaging in what we term the sliding scale approach; the more likely the plaintiff will succeed on the merits, the less the balance of irreparable harms need favor the plaintiff’s position. Id. The sliding scale approach is not mathematical in nature, rather it is more properly characterized as subjective and intuitive, one which permits district courts to weigh the competing considerations and mold appropriate relief. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction under the abuse of discretion standard. Id. A district court when analyzing the relevant factors abuses it discretion when it commits a clear error of fact or an error of law. Id. at 13. We accord, absent any clear error of fact or an error of law, great deference to the district court’s weighing of the relevant factors. Id. [W]hile our review is more searching than an examination of whether the district court weighed those factors irrationally or fancifully, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the district court. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Jones finds fault with the manner in which the magistrate judge weighed the relevant factors in deciding to grant a preliminary injunction in favor of Ty. Balancing the harms involves a two- step process. First the court must assess the plaintiff’s chance of success. Next it must balance the hardships in accordance with this determination. Farley Candy Co., 14 F.3d at 314. Initially, the court only needs to determine that the plaintiff has some likelihood of success on the merits. However, at the balancing stage, the court must determine how great the moving party’s likelihood of success on the merits is in order to properly balance the potential harms. See id. at 314 n.1. Jones contends that the magistrate judge failed to conduct a sliding scale analysis in his June 5, 2000 Opinion and Order and that he balanced the harms to the respective parties before considering whether Ty had shown that it had a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. When the magistrate judge balanced the harms, according to Jones, it had not yet determined how great Ty’s likelihood of success on the merits was; therefore, the magistrate judge improperly balanced the harms. Jones, in a motion for reconsideration, alerted the magistrate judge to its belief that he had failed in the opinion to engage in the sliding scale approach. The magistrate judge conducted a hearing on June 20, 2000 to address the matter and then on July 7, 2000 issued a supplemental order denying Jones’ motion for reconsideration. Jones points out that the magistrate judge’s original opinion made no mention about Ty’s approximately 50 - 50 chance of succeeding on the merits. Further, Jones notes that the magistrate judge in his original opinion found, after addressing the likelihood of confusion factors, that Ty had a better than negligible chance of showing likelihood of confusion. Jones concludes that the magistrate judge’s assertion that Ty had about a 50 - 50 likelihood of success on the merits is at odds with his conclusion that Ty had a better than negligible chance of showing a likelihood of confusion. Jones claims that the magistrate judge failed to properly conduct a sliding scale analysis because he balanced the harms before assessing Ty’s likelihood of success on the merits and the magistrate judge’s determination of the likelihood of success on the merits seems inconsistent with his original opinion. Both in a supplemental order and a hearing conducted on June 20, 2000, the magistrate judge indicated that he had evaluated Ty’s likelihood of success on the merits before considering the