BidZirk, LLC v. Smith, No. 06-1487 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1487 BIDZIRK, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DANIEL G. SCHMIDT, III; JILL PATTERSON, Plaintiffs, versus PHILLIP J. SMITH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cv-00109-HMH-WM) Submitted: February 12, 2007 Decided: March 6, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Morgan Elwell, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Phillip J. Smith, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: BidZirk, LLC, Daniel G. Schmidt, III, and Jill Patterson filed a complaint in federal district court alleging Phillip J. Smith s articles on his internet web log violated the Federal Trademark Dilution Act and state law. BidZirk moved for preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ยง 1116(a) (2000). Adopting district court the denied magistrate a judge s preliminary recommendation, injunction, and the BidZirk appealed. We review the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, recognizing that preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies involving the exercise of very farreaching power to circumstances. be granted only sparingly and in limited MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001). A district court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect preliminary injunction standard, rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact, or misapprehends litigation. the law with respect to underlying issues in Quince Orchard Valley Citizens Ass n, Inc. v. Hodel, 872 F.2d 75, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). In determining whether a preliminary appropriate, we consider four factors: injunction is (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the preliminary injunction is denied; (2) the likelihood of harm - 2 - to the defendant if the requested relief is granted; (3) the likelihood the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 1991). [T]he balance of harm evaluation should precede the determination of the degree by which the plaintiff must establish the likelihood of success on his part. Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 813 (4th Cir. 1991). If, after balancing the irreparable harm to the plaintiff against the irreparable harm to the defendant, the balance tips decidedly in the favor of the plaintiff, a preliminary injunction would be appropriate if the plaintiff raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation. Id. at 812-13. If the balance tips away from the plaintiff toward equivalency, the plaintiff must demonstrate its entitlement to a preliminary injunction with a very clear and strong case, because if there is doubt as to the probability of plaintiff s ultimate success injunction must be denied. on the merits, the preliminary Id. at 813. In light of these principles, we find no abuse of discretion and we affirm the district court s order denying a preliminary injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are - 3 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 4 -
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.
