American Bullion, Inc. v. Regal Assets, LLC, 2:14-cv-01873

American Bullion and Regal Assets are competitors in selling/adding precious metals to IRAs; dispute concerns online affiliate websites that allegedly publish false reviews praising Regal and disparaging American Bullion.
Regal operates an affiliate program governed by a written Affiliate Agreement that (among other things) supplies affiliates with marketing materials, reserves Regal’s right to approve affiliate content, allows Regal to monitor sites, and restricts affiliates from competing in the industry.
Plaintiff alleges affiliate sites use American Bullion’s name to misdirect users to Regal, repeat false statements (e.g., misidentifying American Bullion as the party in a prior fraud action), and publish Regal-provided “swipe files” and templates posing as independent reviews.
Regal and Gallagher contend affiliates are independent contractors who control their own content and that Regal only supplies limited materials (cookied site clones, lead forms, banners, swipe files) and does not direct review content.
The court found evidence (recruitment templates, active swipe-file content, and the Affiliate Agreement’s control provisions) showing affiliates functioned as Regal’s agents and concluded Lanham Act violations were likely.
The court granted a preliminary injunction (to issue separately), finding likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to American Bullion, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Regal is liable for false/misleading affiliate content	Regal supplies content and controls affiliates; affiliates are agents, so Regal is responsible under the Lanham Act	Affiliates are independent contractors who control content; Regal not responsible for third-party statements	Court: Affiliates are effectively Regal’s agents given contract control and supplied content; Regal liable
Whether American Bullion is likely to succeed on Lanham Act and related claims	Evidence of false statements, misdirection, and Regal-provided templates makes success likely	Denies responsibility and disputes extent of false content; claims cessation	Court: Likelihood of success demonstrated; Lanham Act violations at least probable
Whether plaintiff faces irreparable harm absent injunction	Lost sales and goodwill, customer testimony show ongoing injury	Contends preferences and limited testimonials insufficient; argues conduct has ceased	Court: Irreparable harm likely (loss of goodwill, continuing false narratives); relief warranted
Whether preliminary injunction’s equities/public interest favor plaintiff	Public interest in preventing deceptive advertising; harm to plaintiff outweighs burdens on Regal	Argues injunction unduly broad and harms affiliates/contractual arrangements	Court: Balance favors plaintiff; injunction not unduly burdensome and serves public interest

Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (establishes four-factor preliminary injunction standard)
Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935 (9th Cir.) (sliding-scale test for likelihood of success vs. irreparable harm)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (clarifies Winter factors and preliminary injunction standards)
Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir.) (loss of goodwill can constitute irreparable harm)
United States v. Bonds, 608 F.3d 495 (9th Cir.) (agency exists where principal has right to control agent)