Cited by

The burden of proof is on the party seeking an injunction to “establish that [the] legal remedy is not adequate and that the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., (citation omitted).

Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., (citations omitted).

“Because a temporary injunction is granted before a trial on the merits, ‘a showing of irreparable harm is required to prevent undue hardship to the party against whom the injunction is issued, whose liability has not yet been determined.’” (quoting Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., ).

trict] court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless, based upon the whole record, it appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion,’” which the party challenging the decision “bears the burden to show.” First & First, LLC v. Chadco of Duluth, LLC , (alteration in original) (quoting Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., ) , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

ial and irreparable.” The district court further determined that “[w]ithout a permanent injunction, the harm inflicted by [American Arena’s] knowing and bad faith trademark infringement will continue without redress.” If irreparable harm can be inferred from a finding of a breach of the covenant not to compete or not to disclose trade secrets, Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., it can be inferred from a finding of trademark infringement.

v. 16 Brunkow Hardwood Corp., (quoting Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., n.6 (Minn. 1979)).

The propriety of injunctive relief is a decision that “rests within the sound discretion of the [district] court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless, based upon the whole record, it appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

See Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., 2 (Minn. 1979) (“The party seeking the injunction must establish that his legal remedy is not adequate and that the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury.” (citation omitted)); (involving request for injunctive and contractual relief)

The decision to grant an injunction “rests within the sound discretion of the [district] court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless, based upon the whole record, it appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

at 286 (quoting Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., ).

v. Brunkow Hardwood Corp., d 27, 31 (Minn. App. 1993) (quoting Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., n.6 (Minn.1979)).

(citing Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., ).

CH relies on the supreme court’s opinion in Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., which states, “Although damages for breach of contract are traditionally measured by the nonbreaching party’s loss of expected benefits under the contract, .

Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., City of Mounds View v. Metro.

9 Because a temporary injunction is granted before a trial on the merits, “a showing of irreparable harm is required to prevent undue hardship to the party against whom the injunction is issued, whose liability has not yet been determined.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., see Pickerign v. Pasco Mktg., Inc., (explaining that a temporary injunction is appropriate “when it is apparent that the rights of a party will be irreparably injured before a trial on the merits .

Cherne Industr, Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc. , d 81, 91 (Minn. 1979).

See Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis , 209 (Minn. 1993) (temporary injunction); Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., (permanent injunction).

“[W]here a [district] court has determined that the prevailing party is entitled to relief, it may fashion such remedies, legal and equitable, as are necessa ry to effectuate such relief.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

See Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

7 To be granted an injunction, a p arty must show that any remedy at law would be inadequate and that an injunctio n “is necessary to prevent grea t and irreparable injury.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., (citations omitted).

“Generally, injunctive relief based on a contract must be coextensive with the terms of the contract.” Upper Midwest Sales Co. v. Ecolab, Inc. , (citing Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc. , n.6 (Minn. 1979)).

The district court, citing Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc. , , 92 (Minn. 1979), held that SJM, as the party seeking permanent injunctive *682 relief, "must demonstrate a clear threat of irreparable harm in the absence of such relief."

See Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc .

Appellants must demonstrate that there is no adequate legal remedy and that “the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable harm.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

see also U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Angeion Corp. , (“The party seeking the injunction must demonstrate that there is an inadequate legal remedy and that the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.

(citing Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc. , ).

Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., d 81, 92 (Minn. 1979).

“The party seeking the injunction must demonstrate that there is an inadequate legal remedy and that the injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury.” (citing Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc., ), review denied (Minn. Oct.

Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc.

Findings of fact “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

10 Inc., n.6 (Minn. 1979).

“The granting of an injunction generally rests within the sound discretion of the [district] court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless, based upon the whole record, it appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.

*444 A decision on whether to grant an injunction is within the sound discretion of the district court and “will not be disturbed on appeal unless, based upon the whole record, it appears that there has been an abuse of such discretion.” Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assocs., Inc.