Drafting TRO Motion

the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause consumer confusion.

II.     LEGAL STANDARD

        A party seeking a preliminary injunction in a trademark case must establish “(1) irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits or (b) a sufficiently serious question going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the moving party’s favor.” Brennan’s, Inc. v. Brennan’s Restaurant, L.L.C., 360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004). Critically, “[i]n a trademark infringement case, proof of a likelihood of confusion establishes both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.” Id..

        To evaluate the likelihood of consumer confusion, the Second Circuit applies the eight-factor test set forth in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961). The factors are: “(1) the strength of the mark, (2) the degree of similarity between the two marks, (3) the competitive proximity of the products, (4) actual confusion, (5) the likelihood the plaintiff will bridge the gap, (6) the defendant’s good faith in adopting its mark, (7) the quality of the defendant’s products, and (8) the sophistication of the purchasers.” Brennan’s, 360 F.3d at 130; Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 454 F.3d 108, 116 (2d Cir. 2006).

        “No single factor is dispositive, nor is a court limited to consideration of only these factors.” Brennan’s, 360 F.3d at 130. Rather, “each factor must be evaluated in the context of how it bears on the ultimate question of likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product.” Id. (quoting Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 872 (2d Cir. 1986)).

ARGUMENT

I. Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits Because the Polaroid Factors Overwhelmingly Favor a Finding of Likelihood of Confusion