IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Minn.: Arena football league's bid to block rival league team's name mid-season denied, (Jun 2, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

Months of delay in seeking relief fatally undermined its irreparable harm showing.

A professional arena football league accused a franchise of copying its team name and branding to compete in a rival arena league, and a federal judge even agreed the copying looked like textbook trademark infringement. But the league walked away empty-handed, undone not by the weakness of its case, but by its own delay in asking for relief. The district court in Minnesota denied the The Arena League’s motion for preliminary injunction after finding that little additional harm will be caused by the defendants’ continued infringement and the delay in filing essentially rebutted the presumption of irreparable harm (Pulling Guard Productions, LLC v. Jacob Lambert, No. 0:26-cv-02305-PJS-LIB (D. Minn. May 27, 2026)).

Background. The dispute arises out of competing interests in the professional arena football market. Plaintiff Pulling Guard Productions, LLC, doing business as The Arena League (TAL), operates a professional arena football league and holds trademark rights in the name "Duluth Harbor Monsters." Defendant Minnesota Monsters Entertainment LLC, along with affiliated individuals and entities launched their rebranded arena football franchise operating under the name "Minnesota Monsters" and compete in a rival arena football league known as Arena Football 1.

TAL filed suit asserting claims for trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Contemporaneously with filing its complaint, TAL moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to bar defendants from continuing to use the "Minnesota Monsters" name and associated branding.

The record reflected that defendants had been publicly promoting the "Minnesota Monsters" franchise since at least September 2025, a fact that was fully known to TAL well before it initiated litigation. By the time TAL moved for injunctive relief, the Minnesota Monsters were already well into their playing season.

Motion for preliminary injunction. The court evaluated the motion under the familiar Dataphase factors: (1) the movant's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant absent injunctive relief; (3) the balance of harms between the parties; and (4) the public interest. As the court noted at the outset, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the burden rests squarely on the party seeking such relief to establish entitlement under each factor.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The court acknowledged that TAL had made a strong showing on its core trademark infringement claim. Comparing TAL's "Duluth Harbor Monsters" mark with defendants' "Minnesota Monsters" name and branding, the court found the visual and conceptual similarity sufficient to suggest a meaningful likelihood of confusion. On this narrow issue, TAL's showing was characterized as strong.

However, the court found that TAL did not appear likely to succeed on its remaining claims of false advertising, breach of contract, both tortious interference theories, unjust enrichment, and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim. With likelihood of success established only as to a single claim out of the several asserted, the first Dataphase factor offered only partial support for TAL's motion and was insufficient on its own to justify injunctive relief.

Irreparable harm. The court's analysis of irreparable harm proved dispositive. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff in a trademark action that establishes a likelihood of confusion is traditionally entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm. The court acknowledged this presumption but found that TAL's significant delay in seeking injunctive relief substantially vitiated its force.

The key facts driving this conclusion were straightforward: defendants had been publicly marketing the "Minnesota Monsters" franchise since September 2025, TAL had full knowledge of this activity, and yet TAL waited months before filing suit and seeking emergency relief. Invoking the Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Kohls v. Ellison, 166 F.4th 728 (8th Cir. 2026), the court observed that delay in seeking a preliminary injunction "vitiates much of the force of [its] allegations of irreparable harm." The court also cited Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust v. Cori, 924 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2019), which held that a plaintiff was not entitled to any presumption of irreparable harm where it had failed to promptly seek preliminary injunctive relief following alleged trademark infringement.

The court emphasized that the relevant inquiry is not the harm already suffered before the filing of suit, but rather what additional harm TAL would experience going forward absent injunctive relief. On that question, the court concluded that little additional harm appeared likely to result from defendants' continued use of the "Minnesota Monsters" name; and the harm, to the extent it existed, had already largely materialized during the months TAL chose not to act.

Balance of harms. Even if TAL had established a sufficient threat of future harm, the balance of hardships weighed decisively against granting the injunction. By the time of the May 18, 2026, hearing, the Minnesota Monsters were nearly one-third of the way through their playing season. Forcing the franchise to change its name and rebrand in the middle of an ongoing season would impose substantial hardship not only on the defendants themselves, but on a broad array of innocent third parties including concession workers, television broadcasters, players, and fans, who had organized their affairs around the existing team name and branding.

The involvement of these third parties loomed large in the court's equitable evaluation. Citing Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc., 27 F.4th 657 (8th Cir. 2022), the court recognized that heightened public interest in the surrounding circumstances is a relevant consideration in assessing the appropriateness of injunctive relief. The mid-season timing transformed what might otherwise have been a manageable rebranding directive into a significantly more disruptive remedy, one the equities did not support.

Conclusion. Weighing all four Dataphase factors together, the court found that TAL had not carried its burden of establishing entitlement to a preliminary injunction and therefore denied the motion.

The Case is No. 0:26-cv-02305-PJS-LIB.

Judge: Schiltz, P.

Attorneys: Allison Dohnalek (Best & Flanagan LLP) for Pulling Guard Productions, LLC. Christopher Heinze (Libby Law Office, P.A.) for Jacob Lambert.

Companies: Pulling Guard Productions, LLC

Cases: Trademark MinnesotaNews