Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8890220" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I already told you that this isn't true in the United States. Here's some examples:Florida:1) irreparable harm2) a clear legal right3) an inadequate remedy at law4) consideration of the public interest.Texas:(1) a cause of action against the defendant;(2) a probable right to the relief sought;(3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim.Minnesota:(1) the nature and background of the relationship between the parties preexisting the dispute giving rise to the request for relief;(2) the harm to be suffered by plaintiff if the temporary restraint is denied as compared to that inflicted on defendant if the injunction issues pending trial;(3) the likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits when the fact situation is viewed in light of established precedents fixing the limits of equitable relief;(4) the aspects of the fact situation, if any, that permit or require consideration of public policy expressed in the statutes, state and federal; (5) the administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision and enforcement of the temporary decreeHawaii:(1) whether the moving party has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits;(2) whether the balance of irreparable harms favors the issuance of an injunction;(3) whether the public interest supports granting such an injunctionNotice that in various states, there are additional factors or missing factors. More importantly, this is about a preliminary injunction, not about what might result from summary judgment or a full trial on the merits. In American commercial litigation, preliminary injunctions are incredibly rare, so it's barely worth going through these factors. Instead, it would be about the in terrorem effect of the on-going litigation.Again, familiarity with different jurisdictions would help. In the United States, you do not pay attorney's fees or costs absent a rule or statute (the "American Rule,"), but the winning movant will almost always have to pay a sizeable bond for the issuance of an injunction.ETA- it appears you are using Canadian law. I would wager substantial amounts of money that Hasbro's first shot fired won't be in Canada.</blockquote>

Verification