IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D.S.C.: Logistics company denied preliminary relief against former partners, (Aug 1, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

A third-party logistics company failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims.

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to a third-party logistics company against its former partners. The district court found that the third-party logistics company failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims under the Lanham Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) (United Cargo Management, Inc. v. Blair, No. 2:25-cv-04196-DCN (D.S.C. July 30, 2025)).

Background. United Cargo Management Inc. (UCM) is a third-party logistics company established in 1987 by Thomas Lee that provides freight and cargo delivery services. UCM alleged that Carlton Blair III (Blair) is taking its customers and trade secrets from the UCM Charleston division and is using UCM’s trademark without permission. In contrast, Blair and Worldlog, LLC (Worldlog) (collectively, defendants) alleged that Blair and UCM were partners or joint venturers, that defendants were entitled to the Charleston division customers and information, and that they were rebranding and running the former division of UCM Charleston as Worldlog. The defendants contended that four written agreements between Blair and Thomas Lee governed the relationship of the parties as joint venture partners. UCM sought a TRO and a mandatory preliminary injunction against the defendants, seeking protection for the alleged trade secrets violation and trademark infringement. UCM’s preliminary injunction application was based on its federal claims under the Lanham Act, the DTSA, the CFAA, and the ACPA.

Preliminary injunction analysis. To secure a TRO or preliminary injunction, UCM had to satisfy the four-part test established in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), which requires a showing of: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable harm absent an injunction; (3) balance of hardships favoring the movant; and (4) public interest in granting the injunction.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The district court found that UCM failed to meet the first Winter factor, and as such declined to consider the remaining factors.

Lanham Act claim. UCM did not have a registered trademark but bases its trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act on the argument that it was the first to do business using the marks “United Cargo Management” and “UCM.” However, the district court found that UCM’s claim regarding the “United Cargo Management,” “UCM,” and “UCMCHS” marks was moot because the defendants had ceased using the marks and only used them as they were transitioning the UCM Charleston division to the Worldlog Charleston division. Additionally, as for the “WCM” and “WCMCHS” marks, UCM had not made a clear showing it has a valid claim as to those marks, as it is common in the shipping industry to use a mark that is the acronym for a company, and here, Worldlog Charleston was using its acronym to create its logo. As the first element of the Lanham Act was not met, the district court did not analyze the remaining elements. Therefore, the district court determined that UCM failed to make a clear showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.

DTSA claim. The district court noted that UCM did not make a clear showing it was vigilant in protecting its alleged trade secrets, as the defendants had access to the information, and the information consisted of clients they developed. Further, the alleged trade secrets were not identified with particularity, and instead were generically identified as “customer lists and information pertaining to those customers and vendor lists including shipping and freight transport companies,” with no description of the files, no description of their location, and no document titles.

Therefore, UCM failed to make a clear showing that it took reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the documents and not specifically identified the documents. Additionally, it had not clearly shown that these documents merited protection as trade secrets. Consequently, it failed to make a clear showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the DTSA.

CFAA claim. The district court found that UCM failed to provide evidence that the defendants accessed the UCM computers without authorization or that the computers were protected. Further, the defendants had ceased use of UCM’s www.ucmchs.com website, and use of the Info-X system, making those claims moot. Accordingly, UCM failed to show by a clear showing it would succeed on its CFAA claim.

ACPA claim. UCM alleged Blair’s website, www.worldlogllc.com, had a nearly identical appearance to the www.ucmchs.com site, including identical images and business information. The district court found that UCM was not likely to succeed on the merits of the ACPA claim because the defendants maintained they were no longer using the domain name in question, making UCM’s claim moot. Regardless of any alleged similarity of www.ucmchs.com and www.worldlogllc.com, UCM was not the owner of any marks on the www.worldlogllc.com website. Further, UCM had not made a clear showing that the defendants acted in bad faith. Thus, UCM failed to show it was likely to succeed on the merits of its ACPA claim.

Because UCM failed to demonstrate by a clear showing that it was likely to succeed on its claims under the Lanham Act, the DTSA, the CFAA and the ACPA, its motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction was denied.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-04196-DCN.

Judge: Norton, D.

Attorneys: Charles Edward Weir (Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP) for United Cargo Management, Inc. Greg Horton (Womble Bond Dickinson LLP) for Carlton III Blair.

Companies: United Cargo Management, Inc.; Worldlog, LLC

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet TradeSecrets SouthCarolinaNews