UGX Brands, LLC v. The City of Norfolk

Background

UGX Brands, LLC and Trap Karaoke LLC sued The City of Norfolk, doing business as Seven Venues, Global Music Touring, LLC, Antonio Dowe, and Terrence Thornton, also known as Pusha T. The complaint alleges trademark infringement under Section 1114 of the Lanham Act, false designation of origin under Section 1125(a), and common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants’ “Cousinz Festival” trademark infringes the plaintiffs’ “Meet the Cousins” trademark.

A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order intended to prevent serious harm while a case proceeds; it is not the final relief in the case. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on April 29, 2025, seeking to prevent the defendants from using “Cousinz Festival” in connection with a music festival scheduled for August 2025 in Norfolk, Virginia.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show likely irreparable harm, either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious merits questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. Because irreparable harm is a required threshold showing, the court addressed that issue first.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not established irreparable harm. First, it found that the plaintiffs’ delay weighed against such a finding. The plaintiffs filed the action on July 31, 2024, even though they knew that the defendants’ festival was scheduled for August 31, 2024. After that festival occurred, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 20, 2024, alleging that the defendants’ activities would continue to cause irreparable harm. They nevertheless waited until April 29, 2025, about nine months after filing the original complaint, to seek an injunction. The court noted that the plaintiffs gave no explanation for this delay.

Second, the court found that the plaintiffs had not adequately supported their claims that the defendants’ use of the mark would erode the distinctiveness of “Meet the Cousins,” damage their reputation and goodwill, or undermine their licensing activities. The plaintiffs relied on assertions about media attention, association between the parties, tarnishment, and reputational injury, but provided no examples, evidence, or additional arguments supporting those assertions. The court characterized the alleged harm as remote and speculative rather than actual and imminent.

The court also noted that the defendants had raised personal jurisdiction, but expressly did not decide that issue. It denied the preliminary-injunction motion assuming, without deciding, that personal jurisdiction existed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm, the court did not need to address the remaining preliminary-injunction requirements.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 53. This order did not resolve the underlying trademark claims or the personal-jurisdiction issue.