Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust v. Cori, 924 F.3d 1004

Phyllis Schlafly created Eagle Forum and related trusts (PSRT, ETF, EFELDF); her adult children ran or contested control after a 2016 family split.
The "gang of six" removed Eagle Forum president Ed Martin; parallel disputes led to multiple lawsuits in Madison County (Illinois), Southern District of Illinois, St. Louis County probate court, and Eastern District of Missouri.
Phyllis Schlafly amended trust instruments in April, May, and August 2016; the August 31 amendment purported to transfer her intellectual property to a royalty trust; she died September 5, 2016.
The trusts sued in the Eastern District of Missouri for infringement of Schlafly’s intellectual property and sought TROs/preliminary injunctions to stop the gang of six from using her name, likeness, and Eagle marks; the district court denied relief.
The district court subsequently administratively closed (stayed) the Eastern District case pending resolution of related cases, requiring periodic status reports.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether preliminary injunction/TRO was warranted to stop alleged trademark/IP use	Trusts: infringement of Schlafly’s marks and name will cause irreparable harm; injunction necessary	Gang of six: related proceedings and prior TROs in other forums complicate claims; monetary relief suffices	Denied: trusts failed to show irreparable harm or likelihood of success sufficient for relief; delay undermined presumption of irreparable harm
Whether trademark cases still get a presumption of irreparable harm	Trusts: presumption applies upon likelihood of confusion	Opponents: Winter/eBay require movant to prove likely irreparable harm; delay negates presumption	Court: uncertain whether presumption survives, but trusts forfeited it by delaying enforcement actions
Whether district court’s stay was immediately appealable under §1291	Trusts: stay ends litigation or effectively surrenders jurisdiction, so appealable	Government/others: stay is temporary, contemplates future proceedings after related cases resolve	Dismissed appeal of stay for lack of jurisdiction: stay was temporary and did not end the litigation
Whether collateral-order doctrine allows immediate appeal of the stay	Trusts: collateral-order exception applies because stay prevents adjudication	Opponents: stay merely delays merits and contemplates further proceedings	Court: collateral-order doctrine inapplicable because stay only delayed proceedings, not refused adjudication

Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for denial of preliminary injunction)
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm and adequacy of legal remedies)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (movant must show likely irreparable injury absent injunction)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (no automatic injunction rule in patent cases; equitable inquiry required)
Hubbard Feeds, Inc. v. Animal Feed Supplement, Inc., 182 F.3d 598 (8th Cir. 1999) (delay can negate irreparable-harm presumption in trademark cases)
Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2013) (delay vitiates force of irreparable-harm allegations)
Cottrell v. Duke, 737 F.3d 1238 (8th Cir. 2013) (when stays are tantamount to dismissal and appealable)
Kreditverein der Bank Austria Creditanstalt fur Niederosterreich und Bergenland v. Nejezchleba, 477 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2007) (stay finality depends on substance and district court intent)
Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (stay/surrender of jurisdiction considerations)