Battling Bubbles: Beverage Behemoth Coors Defeats Upstart Future Proof's Motion For A Preliminary Injunction

A recent decision highlighted some of the evidentiary challenges in seeking preliminary injunctions, and provided guideposts to overcome those challenges.  In  Future Proof Brands, L.L.C. v. Molson Coors Bev. Co.,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's² denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction on a trademark infringement claim.  In this David and Goliath beverage story, Future Proof, L.L.C. ("Future Proof") sued Molson Coors Bev. Co. ("Coors") for trademark infringement, seeking to preliminarily enjoin Coors from "selling and marketing products confusingly similar to its BRIZZY mark."³  While preliminary injunctions are, inherently preliminary, the Fifth Circuit in Future Proof affirmed the district court's insistence on a very high factual burden before the benefit of discovery, particularly when a mark is considered relatively weak.