314 F. Supp. 3d 477
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Chuck Rush, proceeding pro se, owns a registered federal trademark "Crash-A-Rama" and has run events at Holland International Speedway for ~18 years.
- New owners/operators (Hillside Buffalo, LLC and JM Motorsports) advertised a one-time event as "Crash-O-Rama" at the same venue for June 16, 2018; tickets were sold online and in print.
- Rush sent cease-and-desist emails alleging trademark infringement and conversion, then filed suit June 13, 2018 under the Lanham Act and sought emergency relief (TRO, preliminary injunction, expedited hearing).
- The court evaluated subject-matter jurisdiction: diversity was inadequately pleaded because Hillside Buffalo, LLC’s members and their citizenships were not alleged; federal-question jurisdiction under the Lanham Act was sufficiently alleged based on use in commerce and possible consumer confusion via internet advertising.
- The court applied the Second Circuit eBay four-factor test for injunctive relief (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest) and focused on irreparable harm as dispositive.
- The court denied the TRO because Rush’s supporting affidavit offered only conclusory assertions of irreparable injury and did not show that monetary damages would be inadequate for a single, discrete event; the preliminary injunction motion was reserved for later briefing/hearing. Status conference set; Rush ordered to serve Defendants and file proof of service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Rush alleged he is FL citizen and defendants are NY citizens; invoked diversity | Defendants not yet appeared; court requires citizenship of LLC members for diversity | Diversity not properly alleged; cannot rely on diversity jurisdiction |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (federal question under Lanham Act) | Defendants used "Crash-O-Rama" in commerce (ads, ticket sales online) causing confusion and infringing Rush's registered mark | Not adjudicated on record; court considered allegations only | Court preliminarily found Lanham Act claim sufficiently pleaded to invoke federal-question jurisdiction |
| TRO standard (likelihood of irreparable harm) | Rush claimed loss of reputation, livelihood, trademark control; monetary damages inadequate | Defendants' position not on record; court reviewed Rush's evidentiary showing | Denied TRO: plaintiff's conclusory affidavit failed to show likely irreparable harm or inadequacy of monetary relief |
| Emergency injunctive relief for a single event | Rush argued event would permanently damage goodwill and brand | (Not presented) Court questioned whether harms from a single event could be remedied by money damages tied to ticket/concession sales | TRO denied; preliminary injunction left for later resolution with briefing/evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (sets four-factor test for injunctive relief)
- Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) (irreparable harm cannot be presumed; must be demonstrated)
- Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (irreparable harm is a critical prerequisite for preliminary injunction)
- Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2016) (LLC citizenship is determined by citizenship of each member for diversity jurisdiction)
- Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm't, Inc., 60 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995) (monetary damages may compensate lost profits and prevent finding of irreparable harm)
- Power Test Petroleum Distribs., Inc. v. Calcu Gas, Inc., 754 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1985) (loss of control over trademark reputation can constitute irreparable harm)