On July 16, 2013, Judge Lindsay found that a preliminary injunction was not warranted in Alliance Wireless v. 3rd Eye Surveillance (decision available here). Alliance Wireless had filed suit against 3rd Eye Surveillance asserting federal and state claims for trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference. 3rd Eye Surveillance argued that
given the almost nine-year delay in bringing this action, the harm to [3rd Eye Surveillance] in changing products and marketing materials to comply with a [preliminary injunction] far outweighs any harm that [Alliance Wireless] might experience. . . . [3rd Eye Surveillance] further asserts that any alleged harm to [Alliance Wireless] is not irreparable because it has been able to manage its business for this long without substantial harm and any apparent motivation to file suit, whereas the harm to [3rd Eye Surveillance]’s business would be substantial. [3rd Eye Surveillance] contends that [Alliance Wireless] has offered no evidence of confusion or deception; no proof that customers have purchased [3rd Eye Surveillance]’s goods instead of [Alliance Wireless]’s goods; and no explanation as to how [3rd Eye Surveillance] has been unjustly enriched. [3rd Eye Surveillance] also denies ever having heard of [Alliance Wireless] before this dispute arose.
Judge Lindsay held:
The court agrees that [Alliance Wireless] has not met its burden as the movant seeking a [preliminary injunction]. [Alliance Wireless]’s Complaint is not verified, and other than certain exhibits attached to its Complaint pertaining to its alleged trademark registrations and pictures of its product, [Alliance Wireless] has provided no evidence to lend credibility to the allegations in its Complaint. The court therefore concludes, based on the limited record before it, that [Alliance Wireless] has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial threat of irreparable harm. Further, [Alliance Wireless] has not shown that the threatened injury to it outweighs the threatened harm to [3rd Eye Surveillance]. Accordingly, [Alliance Wireless] has not shown that it is entitled to a [preliminary injunction].