United States District Court, D. Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge
the Court is Plaintiff Traeger Pellet Grills LLC's
(“Traeger Grills”) second motion for preliminary
injunction, which is fully briefed. (Docs. 58, 65, 66.) For
the following reasons, Traeger Grills' motion is
October 3, 2019, the Court issued an order enjoining Dansons
U.S. LLC (“Dansons”) from:
1. Using or assisting or consenting to others in using or
publishing, in any manner, the Traeger name, images of the
Traeger Barn location in Mt. Angel, Oregon, images of Joe or
Brian Traeger, references to Joe as the founder or creator of
the pellet grill (collectively the “Traeger
Intellectual Property”) in connection with the
advertising, marketing, or sale of wood pellet grills and
2. Publishing, in any manner, any statement that affiliates
in any way Joe Traeger, Brian Traeger, or Traeger Grills with
Dansons U.S. LLC, Louisiana Grills, Pit Boss, the Founders
Series grills, Dan Thiessen, Jordan Thiessen, Jeff Thiessen
or Dansons' products or endorses Dansons U.S. LLC,
Louisiana Grills, Pit Boss, the Founders Series grills, or
any Dansons grill-related product; and
3. Arranging any public appearance anywhere in the United
States that communicates an endorsement by Joe Traeger or
Brian Traeger of Dansons' U.S. LLC, Louisiana Grills, Pit
Boss, the Founders Series grills, or any other Dansons
(Doc. 53 at 18.) On October 17, 2019, Traeger Grills filed a
motion asking for clarification whether the Court's
October 3, 2019 order enjoined Dansons from marketing its
products under the “Founders Series” name or, in
the alternative, for a preliminary injunction enjoining such
behavior. (Doc. 58.) The same day, the Court clarified that
its October 3, 2019 order did not enjoin Dansons from
continuing to market its products under the “Founders
Series” name, thereby transforming Traeger Grills'
October 17, 2019 motion into its second motion for
preliminary injunction. (Doc. 60.) The motion is now ripe.
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 20 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). These
elements may be balanced on a sliding scale, whereby a
stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing
of another. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.
Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).
But the sliding-scale approach does not relieve the movant of
the burden to satisfy all four prongs for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction. Id. at 1135. Instead,
“‘serious questions going to the merits' and
a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the
plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction,
so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a
likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is
in the public interest.” Id. at 1135. The
movant bears the burden of proof on each element of the test.
Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184
F.Supp.2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).
carefully considered the parties' briefs, the Court finds
that Traeger Grills has not met its burden under the
preliminary injunction test.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Right of ...