IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Del.: Real estate firm waited too long in seeking preliminary injunction in trademark dispute, (Aug 14, 2025)

By Steven Melendez

A court found a delay in filing for the order weighed heavily against a finding of irreparable harm.

A Delaware federal judge denied a preliminary injunction in a trademark case brought by Tourmaline Management LLC against Tourmaline Capital Partners, LLC, citing an 11-month delay in applying for the injunction (Tourmaline Management LLC v. Tourmaline Capital Partners, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00740-MN (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2025)).

Background. Tourmaline Management, "a Delaware-incorporated commercial real estate firm headquartered in San Diego, California," has used the name Tourmaline Capital since Sept. 1, 2011, according to the ruling in the case.

Tourmaline Capital Partners is "a Delaware entity with its principal business in the Bryn Mawr suburb of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" founded in January 2021, according to the ruling. It's a real estate firm specializing in office properties, with at least 12 across the country.

On January 20, 2024, Tourmaline Management applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register the mark "Tourmaline Capital." And on February 6, 2024, Tourmaline Capital Partners applied to register the marks "Tourmaline" and "Tourmaline Capital Partners."

Tourmaline Management filed a letter of protest with the USPTO on May 13, 2024, citing first-filer status, and the USPTO suspended Tourmaline Capital Partners' application. Tourmaline Management was awarded its trademark registrations on March 11, 2025.

Letters and litigation. On May 13, 2024, Tourmaline Management also sent a cease-and-desist letter to Tourmaline Capital Partners, demanding it stop using Tourmaline Management's alleged intellectual property and "abandon its trademark applications," according to the ruling. The company followed up on June 20, 2024, via email, but Tourmaline Capital Partners didn't reply to either message.

And on June 13, 2025, without any further communication between the two companies, Tourmaline Management filed suit, with a complaint including claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act. The company also moved for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order barring Tourmaline Capital Partners from using the Tourmaline name.

On July 15, 2025, Tourmaline Capital Partners filed an opposition to that motion, and Tourmaline Management submitted its own reply brief two weeks later.

Irreparable harm. To win a preliminary injunction, parties generally need to show they'll face irreparable harm if that's not granted. Failure to speedily file for one weighs against such a finding, according to the ruling, which points to examples where courts rejected applications for a preliminary injunction due to a delay of weeks or months.

"Here, Plaintiff waited until June 13, 2025, to file its Complaint and preliminary injunction motion – nearly a year after its last correspondence with Defendant on June 20, 2024," according to the ruling. "Courts in the Third Circuit routinely find that a delay of this length is fatal to the irreparable harm showing in trademark infringement actions."

Additionally, Tourmaline Management hasn't "asserted its trademark rights" against other commercial real estate companies using a variation on "Tourmaline" in their names, despite there being at least half a dozen around the country, according to the ruling.

"That is another measure of delay," the judge wrote.

Even counting from the time Tourmaline Management received final approval from the USPTO still gives a delay of three months, and the company could have asserted "a common law cause of action—at the least" earlier on, according to the ruling.

"In sum, then, Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction more than a year after discovering Defendant’s infringement is like the Titanic pilot’s tack after spotting the iceberg – a good instinct, but far too late," according to the ruling. "And here, as in the North Atlantic in 1912, that belated effort sinks the ship."

The court declined to examine other factors, like the likelihood of the suit's success on the merits, after finding the irreparable harm requirement not satisfied.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00740-MN.

Judge: Noreika, M.

Attorneys: Stamatios Stamoulis (Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC) for Tourmaline Management LLC. Benjamin Schladweiler (Greenberg Traurig, LLP) for Tourmaline Capital Partners, LLC.

Companies: Tourmaline Management LLC; Tourmaline Capital Partners, LLC

Cases: Trademark DelawareNews