Incontro Holdings, LLC, 8 the court excused a two- month delay between the filing of the complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction because that “delay corresponds with the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is one of the greatest crises our world has seen in recent history.”9 In Data Management Ass’n International v. [...] Among other important provisions, it includes an amendment to Section 34 of the Trademark Act of 194627 as follows: A plaintiff seeking any such injunction shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of a violation identified in this subsection in the case of a motion for a permanent injunction or upon a finding of likelihood of success on the merits for a viol. [...] Harley’s Dream,47 the court found that the plaintiff’s delay of nearly three years rebutted any presumption it would have gained by demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, and without any affirmative evidence supporting irreparable harm, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.48 The cases also show that numerous defendants were unsuccessful at rebutting the presumpti. [...] Beyond ambiguity in a published opinion, there can be differences in how the court or the parties pick the starting points and endpoints for assessing the length of the period of delay. [...] The proper measurement is from the date the plaintiff actually knew or should have known of the defendant’s infringing conduct to the date the motion was filed—a standard that includes both actual and constructive knowledge.51 There have been instances where a court will identify the dates only between the filing of the complaint and a subsequent motion for a preliminary injunction,52 ignoring the.
- Pages
- 94
- Published in
- United States of America
