NICHINO AMERICA, INC., Appellant v. VALENT U.S.A. LLC, 44 F.4th 180

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-The district court properly denied a company a preliminary injunction against a seller's allegedly infringing mark because its finding that the seller rebutted the presumption in the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA), Pub. L. No. 116-260, § 226(a), followed the TMA and tracked Fed. R. Evid. 301. Finding that the company would likely succeed on the merits, the district court properly applied the TMA by presuming irreparable harm and turning its attention to the seller's rebuttal evidence. It appropriately referenced the Lapp factors for consumer confusion, described them as "closely balanced," and found that the seller had rebutted the presumption by producing evidence of a sophisticated consumer class. In applying the TMA, courts had to ask only whether the rebuttal evidence was enough to allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that irreparable harm was unlikely.