Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., Plaintiff/counter-defendant/appellant, v. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.,defendant/counter-plaintiff/appellee, 101 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 101 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Nov. 5, 1996. *Decided Nov. 13, 1996

Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

This appeal from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1), and we affirm.

"A district court's order regarding preliminary injunctive relief is subject to limited review." Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir. 1996). The denial of a preliminary injunction "should be upheld unless the court incorrectly applied the law, relied on clearly erroneous factual findings, or otherwise abused its discretion." Id.

Here, the district court denied appellant's request for, inter alia, a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin appellee's use on jeans of a long, narrow rectangular label, positioned vertically inside the fly and facing outward so as to be visible when the fly is open. The record before us shows that the court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise, clearly erroneous factual findings, or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant failed to show either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury without an injunction, or that serious questions were raised and that the balance of hardships tipped decidedly in its favor. See id.

Accordingly, the denial of a preliminary injunction is

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.