## Facts

- Brennan’s, Inc. owned and operated “Brennan’s,” a New Orleans restaurant founded in 1946.
- Brennan’s held a federally registered, incontestable trademark for “Brennan’s” for restaurant services; validity of the registration was not contested.
- Brennan’s operated a separate restaurant in Memphis but did not operate any restaurant in the New York City area.
- Terrance Brennan, a Manhattan chef, opened a New York City restaurant initially named “Brennan’s Seafood & Chop House.”
- After receiving a cease-and-desist letter, the New York restaurant changed its name to “Terrance Brennan’s Seafood & Chop House.”
- Brennan’s sued in federal court for trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and sought a preliminary injunction barring defendants’ continued use of the challenged name.
- The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief, and Brennan’s appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits of Lanham Act claims, including a likelihood of consumer confusion under the Polaroid factors, based on defendants’ use of “Terrance Brennan’s Seafood & Chop House.”
2. Whether the plaintiff established irreparable harm sufficient to justify preliminary injunctive relief.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the plaintiff’s showing of likely confusion insufficient at the preliminary-injunction stage.
- The court further held the district court acted within its discretion in concluding the plaintiff did not establish irreparable harm warranting preliminary relief.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires irreparable harm and either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) serious questions going to the merits plus a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the movant.
- Appellate review of a preliminary injunction ruling is for abuse of discretion; reversal requires an incorrect legal standard, clearly erroneous fact-finding, or an otherwise improper exercise of discretion.
- Likelihood of confusion in trademark cases is evaluated using the Polaroid factors, including strength of the mark, similarity, proximity, bridging the gap, actual confusion, good faith, quality, and consumer sophistication.
- Use of a personal name combined with distinguishing terms (here, “Terrance Brennan’s” plus a descriptive restaurant identifier) can reduce similarity and weaken a claim of likely confusion, particularly where the senior user lacks a local market presence.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld the denial of preliminary injunctive relief because the district court permissibly found that the New Orleans restaurant had not made a strong enough showing of likely confusion in the New York market, and therefore had not established the irreparable harm needed to justify enjoining the New York restaurant’s use of “Terrance Brennan’s Seafood & Chop House” while the case proceeded.


Brennan’s, Inc. v. Brennan’s Rest. LLC, 360 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2004)