IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Va.: Trademark owner secures limited TRO against news publication, (Jun 5, 2026)

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

A trademark owner was entitled to a limited temporary restraining order that does not require the news publication to take down any current references to “The Star” from its websites or other materials, but enjoins it from making new ones.

In a trademark infringement lawsuit, the federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, granted-in-part the trademark owner’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and denied insofar as it seeks to require the news publication to remove statements from public display. The district court concluded that the plaintiff satisfied its burden to obtain a limited TRO to maintain the status quo until it rules on the motion for a preliminary injunction (Washington Star Company, LLC v. NOTUS Media, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-01458-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va. Jun. 2, 2026)).

Background. The Washington Star Company, LLC (plaintiff) owns the trademark THE WASHINGTON STAR and operates websites and media properties under that name, including wash-star.com and, more recently, twstar.com. The plaintiff was previously a daily newspaper published in Washington, D.C. between 1852 and 1981. Notus Media, LLC (Notus) is a news publication based in the Washington, D.C. area that intends to imminently rebrand itself as “The Star.” On May 28, 2026, the plaintiff filed an action asserting claims for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, and common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The plaintiff also filed an emergency motion for TRO. Citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), the court noted that to be eligible for a preliminary injunction or a TRO, a plaintiff must demonstrate each of the following factors by a “clear showing”: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities between the parties tips in favor of the party seeking such relief; and (4) the public interest favors equitable relief.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The plaintiff seeks a TRO on the basis of its Lanham Act claims. To demonstrate trademark infringement, a plaintiff must show both that it owns a valid and protectable mark, and that the defendant’s use of a “reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation” of that mark creates a likelihood of confusion. The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated that it is likely to show that it owns a valid and protectable mark because it owned the federal registration of the THE WASHINGTON STAR mark (Mark) under U.S. Reg. No. 7580365. The plaintiff also used the Mark since 2023 in connection with news, information, and commentary services through the websites washstar.com and, more recently, twstar.com.

As to the second element, “to determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists, courts examine nine factors: (1) the strength or distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark as actually used in the marketplace; (2) the similarity of the two marks to consumers; (3) the similarity of the goods or services that the marks identify; (4) the similarity of the facilities used by the markholders; (5) the similarity of advertising used by the markholders; (6) the defendant’s intent; (7) actual confusion; (8) the quality of the defendant’s product; and (9) the sophistication of the consuming public.” Importantly, courts have held that the “most important factor” among these is actual confusion.

Here, the plaintiff provided evidence of publications and posts touting the resurrection of the former The Washington Star newspaper by the Notus and otherwise directly associating “The Star” with “The Washington Star” Mark held by the plaintiff. The court noted that the declaration of the Chief Executive Officer of Notus, Arielle Elliott, which asserted that the term “Star” is a reference to the “north star of journalism,” was contradicted by the public statements and marketing materials regarding the origin of the name. Additionally, although the Notus proffered a survey suggesting that there may not be a likelihood of confusion among the general adult population in the country, the court noted that both parties specifically target the Washington, D.C. area with their coverage. The court also noted that Notus appeared to be specifically targeting the D.C. market with its rebranding efforts, and, thus, the court found the survey somewhat inapposite given the specific facts of this case. Therefore, actual confusion weighed in favor of granting a TRO.

Next, the court found that the Mark was properly categorized as an arbitrary mark because it applies a common word (“star”) to a product to which it otherwise has no connection (a news source). Thus, the Mark has strong conceptual strength. Although, Notus provided some evidence that other news sources have used the term “star,” the court found these other sources unpersuasive where they were not specifically targeted at the Washington, D.C. market. Turning to commercial strength, the court noted that the Mark had accumulated significant goodwill during the 128 years of the original paper’s run, and the plaintiff has provided evidence that consumers in the relevant market continue to recognize The Washington Star name and the plaintiff itself has used the Mark since 2023. Thus, the court found that the strength or distinctiveness factor also weighed in favor of granting the TRO. As to the remaining factors, the court found that they generally also weighed in favor of granting a TRO here. Accordingly, the court concluded that the plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Irreparable harm. As the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its Lanham Act claim, the court found that the presumption of irreparable injury applies. Therefore, the plaintiff satisfied this element.

Balance of equities. The court found that the only hardship Notus would suffer from a TRO would be the requirement to follow clearly established trademark law. In contrast, in the absence of temporary relief, the plaintiff will likely face significant infringement of its rights under the Lanham Act. Accordingly, the balance of the equities favored granting a TRO.

Public interest. Lastly, as the TRO will prevent the public from being confused by the Notus’ use of “The Star” to associate itself with THE WASHINGTON STAR while the court considers the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the public interest also favored granting a TRO.

In sum, under consideration of the Winter factors, the court found that it was appropriate that a TRO to preserve the status quo. Further, the court noted that requiring Notus to remove references to “The Star” from its websites or other materials which currently exist in the public domain would not maintain the status quo; rather, it would alter it. Therefore, the court will not require Notus to take down any current references but will enjoin it from making new ones. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for TRO was granted-in-part, denied-in-part, and taken under advisement insofar as it seeks a preliminary injunction.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-01458-RDA-LRV.

Judge: Alston, Jr., R.

Attorneys: Brian Patrick Donnelly (Werther & Mills, LLC) for Washington Star Co., LLC. Michael Kwang-Min Kim (Blankingship & Keith PC) for Notus Media, LLC.

Companies: Washington Star Co., LLC; Notus Media, LLC

Cases: Trademark VirginiaNews