2,255 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,513 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of trademark infringement claims and irreparable harm if relief is not granted.
-
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from infringing on their trademarks and ordering the restraint of assets.
-
The court recommended denial of the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order because it failed to comply with procedural rules and did not establish the necessary prerequisites for such an extraordinary remedy.
-
The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pending appeal because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divested it of jurisdiction to review the plaintiff's challenge to a state court judgment, and denied the defendant's motion for sanctions without prejudice.
-
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for entry of final default judgment, finding sufficient basis in the pleadings and evidence for liability and awarding damages and injunctive relief.
-
A party seeking injunctive relief must establish four specific prerequisites, and failure to plead any one is fatal to the request.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-26
The court denied Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order because it failed to demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm and provide sufficient justification for ex parte relief.
-
The court denied the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and that the court likely lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
-
The court held that the arbitration agreement is enforceable and the case should be stayed pending arbitration, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate unconscionability or that equitable carve-out provisions precluded arbitration.
-
A preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. The court found that the contract language permitted termination at any time for any reason, and most claims appeared remediable th
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from infringing on the plaintiff's trademarks.
-
The court granted a temporary restraining order against the defendant, enjoining her from retaining or using the plaintiff's confidential information, finding a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.
-
The court granted Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from using the DESIGNICE trademark on infringing products and restraining their assets.
-
The court held that the motion for a temporary restraining order must be denied due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with procedural requirements.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-11-14
The court held that the plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief was a disguised breach of contract claim, subject to arbitration, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate grounds for a preliminary injunction.
-
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the movant failed to satisfy the procedural requirements, specifically regarding notice to the opposing party.
-
The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding sufficient grounds for ex parte relief due to the risk of irreparable harm from the potential disclosure of trade secrets and confidential information.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-11-07
The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, a prerequisite for injunctive relief.
-
The court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction because the underlying complaint was insufficient to state a claim.
-
Del. Ch.·
2025-10-31
The Court of Chancery dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff failed to properly invoke the court's equitable jurisdiction. The court held that simply requesting injunctive relief or including contractual provisions
-
Del. Ch.·
2025-10-31
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for an antisuit injunction, enjoining the defendant from prosecuting her claims in New York. The court found that valid Delaware forum selection clauses in the corporate charter and financing agreements required the defendant to litigate h
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of trademark infringement claims and irreparable harm if relief is not granted.
-
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that Younger abstention applied to the plaintiff's claims.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was denied because it failed to comply with procedural rules and evidentiary standards.
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of trademark infringement claims and irreparable harm if relief is not granted.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial threat of irreparable injury, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-21
The court granted in part and deferred in part the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, issuing a temporary restraining order against the defendant.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-20
The court granted Plaintiff's motion for final default judgment, permanently enjoining Defendants from infringing Plaintiff's trademarks and ordering the transfer of the offending domain name.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-17
The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order because they failed to meet the required legal standards.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction.
-
The court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, finding that Defendant infringed Plaintiff's copyright and violated the DMCA by removing copyright management information.
-
The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable injury, a prerequisite for a temporary restraining order.
-
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary emergency circumstances for proceeding without notice to the defendants. The court deferred consideration of a preliminary injunction pending service and respon
-
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Defendant's motion to dissolve the TRO as moot because it expired by operation of law, and denying Plaintiff's motion to extend the TRO because it also expired and further extension would require treating it as a preliminary injunction, wh
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's ex parte motion for a preliminary injunction, including asset restraints, due to strong evidence of design patent infringement by the defendants.
-
A prisoner's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied because he failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or a substantial threat of irreparable injury.
-
The court recommended denial of the plaintiff's motions for temporary restraining orders because he failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) regarding immediate and irreparable injury and proper notice certification.
-
Del. Ch.·
2025-10-05
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the closing of a stock-for-stock merger. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a colorable claim, imminent irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities favored granti
-
The court granted default judgment for trademark and design patent infringement, awarding permanent injunctive relief and statutory damages.
-
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessity of proceeding without notice to the defendant.
-
A federal court should dismiss a habeas corpus petition challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings if the petition is duplicative of another pending action and Younger abstention is warranted.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-30
The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, finding the Defendant liable for trademark infringement and counterfeiting and awarding injunctive relief and statutory damages.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for injunctive relief and did not properly initiate a civil action.
-
The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for both the ALJ's partially favorable decision and the SSA's non-medical denial of SSI benefits.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-09-26
The court held that the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied because they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and unduly delayed in seeking relief.
-
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from using the TRUMP trademarks on counterfeit goods and requiring various third parties to assist in enforcing the injunction.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-09-19
The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for entry of final default judgment against the remaining defendants for trademark and design patent infringement.
-
The court denied the plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because they failed to meet procedural requirements and lacked proper notice to the opposing parties.
-
The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged claims for trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, and common law unfair competition and infringement.