## Facts

- Edge Games, Inc., controlled by Dr. Tim Langdell, claimed ownership of several “EDGE”-formative trademarks for video game products, including EDGE, THE EDGE, GAMER’S EDGE, CUTTING EDGE, and others.
- Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) published *Mirror’s Edge*, a first-person action-adventure video game announced in 2007 and released in 2008 after years of development and substantial marketing expenditures.
- EA and its affiliate held a federal registration for MIRROR’S EDGE for software and related goods and services.
- Edge sued in 2010 alleging EA’s use of MIRROR’S EDGE infringed Edge’s asserted EDGE-family marks.
- Edge sought a preliminary injunction to stop EA’s continued use of MIRROR’S EDGE during the litigation.
- EA opposed, presenting evidence that Edge’s registrations were procured or maintained through false statements and questionable specimens and that Edge had abandoned marks through non-use.
- EA also argued Edge delayed seeking injunctive relief despite knowing of *Mirror’s Edge* years earlier.

## Issues

1. Whether Edge established entitlement to a preliminary injunction under the four-factor test requiring (a) likelihood of success on the merits, (b) likelihood of irreparable harm, (c) a balance of equities in its favor, and (d) consistency with the public interest.
2. Whether substantial evidence of potential fraud in trademark prosecution and abandonment through non-use defeated Edge’s showing of likely success.
3. Whether Edge demonstrated a likelihood of confusion between MIRROR’S EDGE and Edge’s asserted marks sufficient to justify preliminary relief.
4. Whether Edge’s delay in seeking relief undermined any showing of irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The court denied Edge’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Edge failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because there were serious questions about the validity and enforceability of its asserted marks (including evidence suggestive of misrepresentations and non-use) and because it did not show a likelihood of confusion.
- Edge failed to show likely irreparable harm, particularly in light of its delay and the uncertain strength of its claimed rights.
- The balance of equities favored EA, which had already invested heavily and built an established, successful product associated with MIRROR’S EDGE.
- The public interest did not favor an injunction absent persuasive evidence of consumer confusion and in light of the record suggesting questionable procurement or maintenance of asserted trademark rights.

## Legal Principles

- Preliminary injunctive relief requires proof of all four elements: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and consistency with the public interest.
- A plaintiff seeking trademark injunctive relief must make a strong merits showing, including enforceable trademark rights and a likelihood of confusion.
- Evidence suggesting fraud or material misstatements in obtaining or maintaining trademark registrations can weaken or defeat presumptions of validity and undermine equitable relief.
- Abandonment may be supported by extended non-use and conduct indicating the mark was not used genuinely in commerce.
- Delay in seeking preliminary injunctive relief weighs against a finding of likely irreparable harm.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin EA’s continued use of MIRROR’S EDGE because Edge did not show likely success or likely irreparable harm, and the equities and public interest favored allowing an established, heavily marketed product to remain on the market while substantial doubts existed about Edge’s trademark rights.


Edge Games, Inc. v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2010)