IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—M.D. Fla.: TRO and preliminary injunction denied in ‘Horseplay Toys‘ trademark infringement suit, (Jun 1, 2026)

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

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

In a trademark infringement lawsuit, the federal district court in Tampa, Florida, has denied Horseplay Inflatables LLC’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction enjoining an individual from using a confusingly similar trade name “Horseplay Toys.” The district court concluded that that Horseplay Inflatables LLC did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm to support a TRO and failed to show that it will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction (Horseplay Inflatables, LLC v. Ruisi, No. 8:25-cv-03477-JLB-NHA (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2026)).

Background. Horseplay Inflatables LLC (Horseplay Inflatables) is a company engaged in the design, production, and sale of adult inflatable toy products. Beginning mid-2023, a former customer of Horseplay Inflatables (defendant) organized several online stores and marketed similar products under the name “Horseplay Toys.” Horseplay Inflatables claimed that the websites created confusion among customers because they use its trade name, mimic its trade dress, and offer nearly identical inflatable products. Horseplay Inflatables further claimed that, during the same timeframe, the defendant opened social media accounts under “Horseplay Toys” to impersonate it and publish defamatory statements. On December 19, 2025, Horseplay Inflatables filed an action against the defendant, bringing nine claims: (1) common law trademark infringement, (2) false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, (3) common law unfair competition, (4) defamation per se, (5) trade libel, (6) tortious interference with existing business relationship, (7) violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), (8) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and (9) violation of the Florida Computer Abuse and Data Recovery Act. On March 6, 2026, Horseplay Inflatables filed its motion for TRO and preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the defendant from use of any confusingly similar trade name. Horseplay Inflatables seeks a TRO and preliminary injunction on the following claims: (1) false designation under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); (2) common law unfair competition; (3) common law trademark infringement; and (4) violations of FDUTPA.

Likelihood of success on the merits. The district court found that Horseplay Inflatables did not show a likelihood of success on the merits as to its trademark infringement claim to warrant a TRO and preliminary injunction. To prevail on a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it has a valid mark entitled to protection and that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion. Here, Horseplay Inflatables failed to demonstrate that it has common law trademark rights. The district court found that the mark “Horseplay Toys” is generic because customers can infer that the nature of the product is horse toys. As Horseplay Inflatables marks are descriptive and not inherently distinctive, the marks must have attained secondary meaning for it to have a protectable interest in them.

In evaluating whether a mark has attained a secondary meaning, the court considers four factors: (1) the length and manner of its use; (2) the nature and extent of advertising and promotion; (3) the efforts made by the user of the mark to promote a conscious connection in the public’s mind between the name and the user’s product or business; and (4) the extent to which the public actually identifies the name with the user’s product or venture. The party seeking trademark protection carries the burden of proof and must produce a high degree of proof to establish secondary meaning.

First, Horseplay Inflatables alleged that it has used “Horseplay Toys” in commerce since 2018, adopted the name on Shopify in 2019, and used in on social media platforms since 2015, well before the defendant’s use of the name. Therefore, the first element was satisfied. Second, Horseplay Inflatables alleged that it markets and sells its products through its e-commerce storefront and social media, reaching customers throughout the United States and internationally. The district court found that these allegations were insufficient to satisfy the second factor because for advertising to serve as evidence of secondary meaning, there must be a link between the trade dress and the sales and advertising. However, Horseplay Inflatables did not indicate how it promoted the mark in its advertising. As for the third and fourth factors, Horseplay Inflatables did not adequately explain its efforts to promote a conscious connection between “Horseplay Toys” and its product in the public’s mind or the extent to which the public does identify the name with its product. Thus, Horseplay Inflatables failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the “Horseplay Toys” mark is distinct rather than generic.

The district court found that because Horseplay Inflatables failed to establish a likelihood of confusion as to its Lanham Act claim it also extinguished its claim under Florida law,” because it did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to its FDUTPA claim or its Florida common law unfair competition and trademark infringement claims.

Irreparable harm. The district court noted that Horseplay Inflatables filed its complaint on December 19, 2025, and nearly three months later, on March 6, 2026, moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction. However, Horseplay Inflatables neither provided an explanation for this delay. Additionally, the district court noted that Horseplay Inflatables’ complaint alleged that in mid-2023—years before it took action, the defendant created and began operating an online storefront using the name “Horseplay Toys.” The complaint established Horseplay Inflatables knowledge of the defendant’s use of the name on social media platforms during the same timeframe. Thus, the district court cannot discern a justification for the delay. Therefore, the district court concluded that Horseplay Inflatables lack of “speedy and urgent action” demonstrated a lack of imminent irreparable harm.

The Case is No. 8:25-cv-03477-JLB-NHA.

Judge: Badalamenti, J.

Attorneys: Justin C. Carlin (The Carlin Law Firm, PLLC) for Horseplay Inflatables, LLC. Nino Joseph Ruisi, III, pro se.

Companies: Horseplay Inflatables, LLC

Cases: Trademark FloridaNews