Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
840 F.3d 1244
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Wreal, LLC (founded 2006) owns registered marks “FyreTV” and “FyreTV.com” used since 2007 for an adult-video streaming service and a proprietary set-top box.
- Amazon developed and launched “Amazon Fire TV” (a mainstream streaming set-top box) in April 2014 and was aware of Wreal’s mark but did not contact Wreal beforehand.
- Wreal filed suit against Amazon on April 17, 2014, alleging Lanham Act and Florida unfair-competition claims and sought injunctive relief and damages.
- Although Wreal sued promptly, it waited over five months with little discovery or urgent action before moving for a preliminary injunction on September 22, 2014.
- The district court denied the preliminary injunction (adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation), finding Wreal failed to show the prerequisites for injunctive relief—most critically, imminent irreparable harm given its unexplained delay.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wreal demonstrated imminent irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction | Wreal argued it would suffer irreparable injury from Amazon’s use of “Fire” and needed injunction to prevent consumer confusion and harm to its mark | Amazon argued Wreal delayed pursuing injunctive relief and thus cannot show urgency or imminent harm | Court held Wreal’s unexplained five-month delay undermined any claim of imminent irreparable harm and was dispositive; injunction denied |
| Whether Wreal showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits (reverse-confusion/trademark claims) | Wreal relied on existing evidence of mark ownership and alleged consumer confusion from Amazon’s Fire TV | Amazon disputed sufficient likelihood of confusion and emphasized the mainstream nature of its product | Court did not reach merits because irreparable-harm failure was dispositive |
| Whether balance of harms favors injunctive relief | Wreal asserted harm to its brand outweighed harm to Amazon | Amazon argued injunction would harm its business and public access to mainstream services | Court did not decide because plaintiff failed on irreparable-harm prong |
| Whether injunction would be adverse to public interest | Wreal claimed public interest supports trademark protection | Amazon contended public interest disfavors disrupting consumer access and commerce | Court did not resolve due to disposition on irreparable harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (describing four prerequisites for a preliminary injunction and the need to show imminent irreparable harm)
- Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (preliminary injunction is granted before full adjudication and requires urgency)
- Ne. Fla. Chapter of Ass’n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990) (imminence requirement for irreparable harm)
- Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1985) (delay in moving for injunction undermines claim of irreparable harm)
- BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., LLC, 425 F.3d 964 (11th Cir. 2005) (appellate review of preliminary injunction is narrow and deferential)
- Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards for abuse of discretion on appeal)