plaintiff delay affects irreparable harm and balance of equities where third parties rely on defendant

Pulling Guard Prods., LLC v. Lambert, No. 26-CV-2305 (PJS/LIB), 2026 WL 1481302 (D. Minn. May 27, 2026)

Plaintiff made a “strong showing” that defendants’ “Minnesota Monsters” name and branding infringe its “Duluth Harbor Monsters” mark, though it didn’t show likely success on its claims for false advertising, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

I’m blogging this because the court relies on plaintiff’s delay to deny a preliminary injunction (even though the court doesn’t mention the statutory presumption of irreparable harm; other courts have reaffirmed that delay can also rebut that presumption). The alleged infringement had been going on for months—and was fully known to plaintiff—before it filed suit and sought a preliminary injunction. “[A]t this point, it appears that little additional harm will be caused by defendants’ continued infringement.”

The delay also had effects on the balance of equities:

[T]he potential harm of an injuction to defendants has escalated dramatically now that the “Minnesota Monsters” are nearly one-third of the way through their season. Additionally, numerous innocent third parties could be harmed—including concession workers, television broadcasters, players, and fans—if the Court were to order the “Minnesota Monsters” to change its name and marketing in the middle of the season.