Promo Shop, Inc. v. Jackalope, Inc. and Jackalope, LLC

No. 1:25-cv-00094-AKB (D. Idaho Mar. 3, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Idaho · March 3, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-00094-AKB

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denies PromoShop, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Jackalope, Inc. and Jackalope, LLC. The court concludes that PromoShop failed to clearly identify protectable trade secrets or establish a likelihood that Jackalope misappropriated, used, or disclosed them under the Idaho Trade Secret Act or the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The court also finds that the remaining preliminary-injunction factors do not overcome the lack of demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits.

Holdings

  1. Promo Shop failed to make a clear showing that the information it identified constituted protectable trade secrets because its descriptions were either confidential information that was not secret as to the relevant customers or employees, or broad and indeterminate categories that did not identify specific information or its alleged independent economic value.
  2. Promo Shop failed to establish a likelihood that Jackalope improperly disclosed, used, or was likely to use or disclose identified trade secrets.
  3. The remaining factors did not overcome Promo Shop's failure to show likely success on the merits, and Promo Shop also failed to establish likely irreparable harm.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Promo Shop clearly showed a likelihood of success on its Idaho and federal trade-secret misappropriation claims for purposes of a preliminary injunction.
  2. Whether Promo Shop identified information with sufficient particularity to establish the existence of protectable trade secrets.
  3. Whether the evidence established a likelihood of improper acquisition, disclosure, or competitive use of identified trade secrets.
  4. Whether Promo Shop established likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and a public interest supporting preliminary relief.

Disposition

denied

Cases Cited (18)

  • Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)(followed)
  • Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
  • Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Doe v. Snyder, 28 F.4th 103 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • N. D. v. Reykdal, 102 F.4th 982 (9th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Assurance Wireless USA, L.P. v. Reynolds, 100 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Trumble v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Idaho, 456 P.3d 201 (Idaho 2019)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…