IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Minn.: Trademark owner not entitled to preliminary injunction over alleged infringing use of 'ARO' mark, (Jun 2, 2026)

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

The trademark owner failed to prove a likelihood of success on its claims of trademark infringement and failed to prove irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction were denied.

A Minnesota federal district court denied the trademark owner’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that it was not likely to succeed on its Lanham Act trademark infringement and unfair competition claims. Additionally, the district court found that Holosun Technologies, Inc. did not meet its burden to show that dismissal was proper for lack of venue or its burden to show that transfer was appropriate (AT3 Tactical, LLC v. Holosun Technologies, Inc., No. 0:26-cv-00028-LMP-SGE (D. Minn. May 27, 2026)).

Background. AT3 Tactical, LLC (AT3) is a Minnesota limited liability company engaged in the production and sale of AR-15 parts and accessories, including sights. AT3 sells its own products and resells products from other brands on its website. On August 19, 2019, AT3 began using the mark “ARO” in connection with one of its products, the ARO Micro Red Dot Reflex Sight. Holosun Technologies, Inc. (Holosun) also designs and manufactures gun sights. In 2024, Holosun prepared to launch a red-dot-sight series of products for rifles and eventually named the line of products the “ARO” series. Prior to launching its ARO line, Holosun searched the term “ARO” on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) website and found no registered ARO marks. Holosun debuted its ARO line in January 2025 at a Las Vegas gun show. Shortly after the Las Vegas gun show, AT3 filed an application with the USPTO to register the mark “ARO” in connection with “non-telescopic gun sights for firearms.” AT3’s “ARO” mark was registered on November 11, 2025, and on the same day it sent Holosun a cease-and-desist letter and demanded that Holosun stop using Holosun’s allegedly infringing ARO mark. AT3 also submitted takedown requests to Amazon, a platform used by Holosun to sell its ARO products “against every Holosun ARO product.” As a result, Holosun stopped using its ARO mark and rebranded its ARO line to “ARO-CORE” or “ARO-EVO.” AT3 then brought this trademark infringement and unfair competition action against Holosun. Holosun filed a lawsuit against AT3 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Holosun moved to dismiss AT3’s complaint for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, alternatively, to transfer this case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). AT3 filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Holosun from the continued use of Holosun’s ARO, ARO-CORE, and ARO-EVO marks.

Motion to dismiss for improper venue. Holosun argued that venue is not proper under Section 1391(b)(2) because AT3’s complaint did not sufficiently allege that a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.” In response, AT3 asserted that a substantial part of the events did occur here because it alleged that Holosun “engaged in the advertising, promotion, offering for sale, and sale of gun sights using the Infringing Marks in the state of Minnesota.” AT3 alternatively asserted that venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) because the Court has personal jurisdiction over Holosun. In support, AT3 submitted evidence that Holosun’s website points potential purchasers to at least eight authorized Minnesota dealers; that at least two of the Minnesota dealers specifically sell Holosun ARO products; that another Minnesota dealer has “three dozen” Holosun products available for sale; and that “Holosun has a sales representative based in Maple Lake, Minnesota.” Having found no authority that AT3 cannot invoke Section 1391(b)(1) in response to Holosun’s motion, and because Holosun provided no argument that venue is not proper under Section 1391(b)(1) or that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Holosun, the court concluded that venue was proper here.

Transfer. Holosun alternatively argued that even if this district is an appropriate venue, it is an inconvenient one and the court should transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In deciding whether to transfer, the court noted that there is no “exhaustive list of specific factors to consider,” but courts generally considers the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and the interests of justice. The court noted that ultimately, both sides would incur expenses by traveling to the other’s preferred forum. Therefore, this factor was neutral. Next, regarding the convenience of the witnesses, the court focused on non-party witnesses. However, as neither party identified any non-party witnesses, this factor was also neutral.

When considering whether the interests of justice favor one forum over another, courts consider such factors as: judicial economy, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the comparative costs to the parties of litigating in each forum, each party’s ability to enforce a judgment, obstacles to a fair trial, conflict of law issues, and the advantages of having a local court determine questions of local law. Holosun argued that two of the factors, judicial economy and cost savings support a transfer to California. The court found that judicial economy might slightly favor transfer, but as AT3’s choice of forum “carries some weight,” the court concluded that the interests of justice neither favor nor disfavor transfer. Additionally, the court found that Holosun had not shown that any of the traditional factors weighed in favor of transfer. Accordingly, Holosun did not meet its burden to transfer venue, so Holosun’s motion in its entirety was denied.

Motion for preliminary injunction. The court addressed AT3’s request for an injunction by considering whether it could show: a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, a balance of equities in the plaintiff’s favor, and service of the public interest.

Likelihood of success on the merits.Applying the Eighth Circuit’s multi-factor test, the court undertook a detailed likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

The court found that even though AT3’s ARO mark is conceptually strong, there was little evidence of its commercial strength. However, the court did not find that the marks were so similar that the average consumer would be confused by the products’ origins, for two reasons. First, even though the marks begin with the same three letter acronym, the “use of identical, even dominant, words in common does not automatically mean that two marks are similar.” The addition of -CORE and -EVO to Holosun’s ARO product listings meaningfully alter the presentation of the marks both in look and from a phonetic standpoint and diminishes confusion. Second, all the products at issue are marketed in a way that distinguishes Holosun’s products from AT3’s products. The court noted that it cannot be disputed that the parties’ products are closely related; and direct competition can increase the likelihood of consumer confusion. The court also noted that the fact that both companies attended the same gun show would support an inference that Holosun knew of AT3’s ARO products but does not support the additionally required inference that Holosun intended to mislead the public. The court determined that as “there is no support in the record for AT3’s assertion other than speculation,” this factor weighed against likelihood of confusion. Next, although evidence of actual confusion is not necessary to find that a likelihood of confusion exists, the fact that AT3 provided no such evidence at this stage is “telling.”

The final factor considered “whether the degree of care exercised by the purchaser can eliminate the likelihood of confusion which would otherwise exist.” Here, the parties agreed that their respective products are sold for at least $150. Holosun argued that the price is indicative of a higher degree of care. The court agreed with Holosun. Considering all the factors together, the court concluded that AT3 has not met its burden to show a “probability of confusion.” Thus, the court concluded that AT3 had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Irreparable harm. The court found that the 13-month delay between learning of Holosun’s allegedly infringing products and seeking a preliminary injunction weighed against granting an injunction. Even setting aside the length of delay, AT3 offered no evidence to show that it will be irreparably damaged.

Balance of equities and public interest. The court concluded that AT3 had not shown a likelihood of success that Holosun was continuing to infringe on AT3’s marks, so the balance of the equities favored Holosun. Lastly, AT3 argued that the public’s interest in having purchasing clarity weighed in favor of a preliminary injunction. However, since the court found no likelihood of confusion, the argument was unpersuasive.

The Case is No. 0:26-cv-00028-LMP-SGE.

Judge: Provinzino, L.

Attorneys: Bradley J. Walz (Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP) for AT3 Tactical, LLC. Brendan M. Kenny (Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC) for Holosun Technologies, Inc.

Companies: AT3 Tactical, LLC; Holosun Technologies, Inc.

Cases: Trademark MinnesotaNews