Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
James H. Lundberg, doing business as CS Athletic, sued CSTown Cultural and Creative (Dalian) Co., Ltd., CSTown USA Inc., and Tu Tu USA Inc. on January 28, 2026. He asserted federal unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, California statutory and common-law unfair competition, and California common-law trademark infringement. Lundberg sells cheerleading uniforms and athletic apparel under CS ATHLETIC and says he has used that mark nationally since March 2010. The defendants sell customized apparel, accessories, and heat-transfer products under CSTOWN, reporting use since 2006, a 2012 federal registration for decals and transfers, and expansion into custom apparel in 2019.
Lundberg moved for a preliminary injunction on October 2, 2026, seeking to prohibit the defendants and those acting with them from using CS ATHLETIC or any colorable imitation for the covered athletic goods during the lawsuit. He pointed to alleged confusion incidents between May 2023 and June 2026 and declining sales. The defendants disputed that confusion caused those losses and argued the relief would force them to abandon a commercial identity used for 20 years. The court heard the motion by Zoom on November 2, 2026, along with Lundberg's separate request to cross-examine defendants' declarant Huijie 'Rocky' Zhao.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Christina A. Snyder denied both requests. She declined to rule separately on the parties' evidentiary objections because preliminary-injunction proceedings permit a relaxed approach to admissibility, with evidentiary issues generally affecting weight. She denied cross-examination because Lundberg had not shown this was the rare motion warranting oral testimony and had supplied no basis for examining Zhao in his original request. On the merits, the court applied the Winter standard and the Sleekcraft likelihood-of-confusion factors. Although CS ATHLETIC was inherently distinctive and the goods closely related, the court found the marks dissimilar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression, emphasizing the two-word CS ATHLETIC versus the single-word CSTOWN, their different pronunciations, and contrasting logos.
The court also found the actual-confusion evidence insufficient: eight incidents over three years, one involving a media publication rather than a customer, did not tip the factor. Shared websites and social media were neutral because online advertising is ubiquitous, while customization of team apparel suggested purchasers exercise more than low care. The court gave no weight to the two Sleekcraft factors the parties did not brief, concluded Lundberg failed to establish likely confusion, and therefore did not resolve priority of use, noting the record did not show either party lacked ownership of its mark.
The alternative serious-questions standard did not help because the hardships did not tip sharply toward Lundberg: an injunction's concrete disruption to CSTown, including a wholesale rebrand and website, social-media, packaging, and inventory changes, outweighed his speculative claim of continuing sales losses. Independently, Lundberg failed to show likely imminent irreparable harm given his prolonged delay after notice of coexistence and confusion, the absence of evidence tying declining revenue to confusion rather than other competition, and the availability of monetary damages. The Lanham Act's presumption of irreparable harm did not arise without a likelihood-of-success finding and would be rebutted even if it applied.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied Lundberg's motion for a preliminary injunction and his request to cross-examine Zhao.
- Inherent distinctiveness and closely related goods were not enough to overcome findings that the marks differed and the actual-confusion evidence was limited.
- Shared internet marketing channels received little weight, while customized team-apparel purchases supported greater purchaser care.
- The court did not resolve the competing priority-of-use arguments because Lundberg failed to establish likely confusion on the preliminary record.
- Delay, speculative causation for declining sales, and the disruption of a forced rebrand independently undermined preliminary relief.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves CSTown's existing use unrestricted by the requested interim injunction while the underlying trademark and unfair-competition claims remain pending. It is a preliminary assessment, not a final adjudication of ownership, priority, infringement, or damages.
The ruling illustrates how a trademark claimant can lose preliminary relief despite an inherently distinctive mark and related goods when the marks' overall impressions differ, documented confusion is sparse, and the claimed harm is not closely linked to that confusion. It also shows the practical importance of promptly seeking interim relief and addressing the hardship of compelling an established business to rebrand.