Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Total90, LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Nike, Inc. in a dispute over the “Total90” trademark. The court held that Total90 had not shown a substantial likelihood of success in establishing that it was the senior user because Nike had not abandoned the mark. The court also concluded that Total90 had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of confusion sufficient to support trademark infringement relief.
Holdings
- Total90 failed to establish a substantial likelihood that it was the senior user because it did not prove that Nike abandoned the Total 90 mark.
- Total90 failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on its trademark infringement claim.
- Total90 failed to establish a substantial threat of irreparable harm.
- Total90 was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because it failed to establish both a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a substantial threat of irreparable injury.
Questions Presented
- Whether Total90 demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on its trademark infringement claim by showing that it was the senior user of the Total90 mark.
- Whether Total90 demonstrated a substantial likelihood of confusion between its Total90 mark and Nike's Total 90 mark.
- Whether Total90 demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm warranting preliminary injunctive relief.
- Whether Total90 satisfied the remaining preliminary-injunction factors concerning the balance of equities and public interest.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (32)
- Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 894 F.3d 692, 696 (5th Cir. 2018)(followed)
- Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009)(cited)
- Perez v. City of San Antonio, No. 23-50746, 2025 WL 3559986, at *17 (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2025)(followed)
- Bluefield Water Association, Inc. v. City of Starkville, Mississippi, 577 F.3d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Lake Charles Diesel, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 328 F.3d 192, 195-96 (5th Cir. 2003)(cited)
- Union National Bank of Texas, Laredo, Texas v. Union National Bank of Texas, Austin, Texas, 909 F.2d 839, 842-45 (5th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Perry v. H. J. Heinz Co. Brands, L.L.C., 994 F.3d 466, 474-76 (5th Cir. 2021)(followed)
- Action Ink, Inc. v. New York Jets, LLC, No. CV 12-46, 2013 WL 12106878, at *4 (E.D. La. June 20, 2013), adhered to on denial of reconsideration, No. CV 12-46, 2013 WL 5532781 (E.D. La. Oct. 4, 2013), aff'd sub nom. Action Ink, Inc. v. New York Jets, L.L.C., 576 F. App'x 321 (5th Cir. 2014)(cited)
- Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 293 (5th Cir. 2004)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 32.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…