Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—W.D. Wash.: Sinclair Oil secures preliminary injunction against Can-Am use of Sinclair trademarks, (May 14, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

Any injuries from improper Sinclair termination of the Can-Am franchise could be remedied by money damages, whereas there would be no adequate remedy at law for injury caused by Can-Am infringing on Sinclair’s trademarks.

On cross-motions for preliminary injunction, the federal district court in Tacoma, Washington, reasoned that plaintiff Can-Am Fuel Distribution LLC (Cam-Am) was potentially attempting to reinstate an expired trademark licensing agreement, whereas common sense indicated a likelihood of confusion over Can-Am’s continued use of Sinclair Oil, Inc.’s (Sinclair’s) trademarks. The court found that Can-Am would not suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction because its damages, if any, were mostly determinable and compensable as money damages. Can-Am could also continue operating, without the use of Sinclair trademarks, as it had previously done for decades using Texaco and Shell trademarks. Sinclair, in contrast, was likely to succeed on its claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, while common sense compelled the conclusion of a strong risk of consumer confusion if Can-Am continued to use Sinclair marks. The court denied Can-Am’s motion for preliminary injunction and granted Sinclair’s motion for preliminary injunction (Can-Am Fuel Distribution LLC v. Sinclair Oil LLC, No. 3:24-cv-05743-DGE (W.D. Wash. May 12, 2025)).

Background. Previously, the federal district court in Tacoma, Washington partially granted defendant Sinclair Oil, Inc.’s and Glovis America Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Can-Am Fuel Distribution LLC’s claims that Sinclair violated a franchise agreement between the parties and that Sinclair and Glovis acted together to terminate Can-Am’s use of Sinclair trademarks at a site in Vancouver, Washington.

While the motions to dismiss were pending, Can-Am and Sinclair each moved for a preliminary injunction. Can-Am sought, pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), Washington Consumer Protection Act for violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act (CPA/FIPA), and Washington’s Gasoline Dealer Bill of Rights (GDBRA), a preliminary injunction requiring Sinclair and Glovis to preserve the status quo pending trial.

Sinclair, meanwhile, sought a preliminary injunction requiring Can-Am to stop all allegedly intentional unauthorized use of Sinclair’s trademarks after expiration and non-renewal of the 2015 Sinclair Trademark Sublicense Agreement (STSA). In its answer to the complaint, Sinclair raised 7 counterclaims under the Lanham Act, including trademark infringement and unfair competition, plus additional state and common law claims.

The court noted it had already dismissed all of Can-Am’s claims under the PMPA and GDBRA as well as its CPA/FIPA claim against Glovis. Accordingly, it would only evaluate the Can-Am motion with respect to the CPA/FIPA claim against Sinclair. The court denied Can-Am’s motion but granted Sinclair’s motion.

Can-Am motion. The court decided that Can-Am was seeking a mandatory injunction that would re-instate an expired agreement. Granting Can-Am a preliminary injunction would have preserved the existing status quo, wherein Can-Am was using Sinclair’s trademarks without permission, rather than the state of affairs that prevailed before the complaint. The facts and the law did not clearly favor the Can-Am CPA/FIPA claim, and that weighed against injunctive relief.

Can-Am contended it would face irreparable harm without injunctive relief in the form of what it conceded were determinable lost profits from termination of the STSA, albeit Can-Am said calculation would be complicated by Can-Am’s loss of patronage and revenue for inability to accept Sinclair credit cards since July 2023. Can-Am said it had to turn away a prospective sublicensee after Sinclair and Glovis cut off Can-Am’s access to credit card payments and motor fuel. Can-Am said franchise termination and loss of goodwill could establish irreparable injury.

The court noted again that Can-Am conceded its losses were both quantifiable and compensable with monetary damages. Even the harm of having to turn away potential sublicensees could be adequately compensated by money damages in excess of several million dollars. And, despite the loss of the right to use Sinclair’s trademarks, Can-Am would still be able to operate a gas station and convenience store at its Vancouver location, as it had previously done with the Texaco and Shell marks for nearly 20 years. These circumstances weighed against injunctive relief.

The court did not reach the balance of equities and public interest because the court had already determined Can-Am would not suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction.

Sinclair motion. The court found Sinclair was likely to succeed on its claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act as well as on some of its other claims. Common sense compelled the conclusion of a strong risk of consumer confusion. Under the circumstances, denying Sinclair’s motion for a preliminary injunction would have effectively granted Can-Am’s motion, because, without injunctive relief, Can-Am could continue to use Sinclair trademarks until final disposition of the case.

In opposition, Can-Am did not present arguments about the elements of Sinclair’s counterclaims for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Can-Am only argued instead that Sinclair could not show a likelihood of success under the Lanham Act unless Sinclair could first establish proper termination of Can-Am’s franchises. The court found that argument failed because permitting Can-Am to continue using Sinclair trademarks after the expiration date would improperly revive an agreement the parties never renewed.

Turning to irreparable harm, Can-Am contended it would all be self-inflicted because Sinclair stopped inspecting Can-Am’s licensed location in anticipation of moving for a preliminary injunction or otherwise resulting from machinations to force an end to the sublicense to obtain a better deal. The court found these arguments conclusory and insufficient to overcome the irrebuttable presumption of irreparable harm in Sinclair’s favor.

As for the balance of equities, Can-Am said it would face irreparable harm while Sinclair would suffer “no cognizable harm.” Again, the court said any injuries from improper termination of its franchise could be remedied by money damages, there was no adequate remedy at law for injury caused by Can-Am infringing on Sinclair’s trademarks, and denying Sinclair injunctive relief would effectively sanction it. The court concluded the balance of equities favored Sinclair.

As for the public interest, the court found the general protection of trademarks, upholding the expiration of Can-Am’s right to use the Sinclair trademarks under the STSA, and the likelihood of confusion resulting from Can-Am’s ongoing, unauthorized use of Sinclair’s trademarks, were sufficient to tip the public interest in favor of Sinclair.

Bond. The parties did not address whether Sinclair should be required to post a bond, but Sinclair requested a $1,000 bond. The court granted that minimal bond as appropriate given Sinclair’s likelihood of success on the merits.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-05743-DGE.

Judge: Estudillo, D.

Attorneys: Adam R. Aquino (Foley & Lardner LLP) for Can-Am Fuel Distribution LLC. Abby Risner (UB Greensfelder, LLP) for Sinclair Oil LLC.

Companies: Can-Am Fuel Distribution LLC; Sinclair Oil LLC

Cases: FranchisingDistribution WashingtonNews