## Facts

- NutraSweet sold shipments of Equal at steep discounts conditioned on distribution outside the United States, with shipping documents warning that diversion was unlawful.
- NutraSweet learned that export-only product had been diverted into the U.S. “grey market,” including multiple prior shipments allegedly reintroduced into domestic commerce.
- Tekstilschik (a Russian entity) claimed it acquired one shipment in Russia through a barter transaction, lacked knowledge of NutraSweet’s distribution restrictions, and arranged to ship the goods to the United States using Romano Fashions as an agent to clear Customs.
- When the shipment reached U.S. Customs, NutraSweet sued to prevent its introduction into the domestic market and sought emergency injunctive relief.
- The district court issued an order labeled a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the shipment’s domestic distribution; the order remained in effect for 77 days.
- Tek appealed, arguing the order was functionally a preliminary injunction and was improperly entered without the required findings, including irreparable harm.

## Issues

1. Whether an order labeled a TRO but extended for 77 days should be treated as a preliminary injunction and therefore be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
2. If appealable, whether the order could be sustained under preliminary-injunction standards, particularly the requirement of irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held it had jurisdiction because the extended TRO operated as the practical equivalent of a preliminary injunction.
- The court vacated the order and remanded with instructions to the district court to vacate the TRO.
- The court expressed serious concern that NutraSweet had not made the showing of irreparable harm required for preliminary injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- For appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), courts classify injunctive orders by their practical effect; a TRO that persists beyond its limited, short-term role may be treated as an appealable preliminary injunction.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires proof of: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; (3) balance of harms; and (4) the public interest.
- Absent irreparable injury, a preliminary injunction cannot issue even if other factors favor the movant; purely economic injury generally is not irreparable because it can be remedied by money damages.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit treated the long-running “TRO” as an appealable preliminary injunction and ordered it vacated because the record and findings did not adequately establish irreparable harm as required for preliminary injunctive relief.


NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 112 F.3d 689 (3d Cir. 1997)