A few points:
- A preliminary injunction of the nature requested by Surefire, as pointed out by the court, is not issued lightly. A call for injunctive relief prior to the full airing of facts and arguments is much like punishing someone before finding him guilty. While such injunctions are common enough that we've all heard of them, the burden to get one is higher than the burden of winning the underlying case.
- Much of the court's reasoning rested on the argument that the suppressor pictured in the advertisement couldn't be readily identified as a Surefire product.
- Another major sticking point with the court was Surefire's inability to demonstrate that consumers had been convinced there was actually anything wrong with Surefire suppressors.
- Now that Surefire knows where the weaknesses in its case are, it will be better able to prepare for the actual trial. That is, btw, one reason why plaintiffs try to get preliminary injunctive relief in the first place: so they know which issues the court expects them to address with more specificity and/or weightier evidence.
Some of what you quoted from the decision was taken way out of context, btw. You might want to check with your lawyer before you make further statements which
are demonstrably misleading.
Of particular note, AAC is
not arguing that its product is in any way better than Surefire's.
Here's a question for AAC: Are you still running the same ad? Because if you're not, then Surefire got the result the same result as if they'd won the injunction.