On October 28, 2016, in Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction due to the party's delay in seeking it ( (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016)).

Wreal, LLC supplies video and audio content through a variety of channels. Wreal began using the marks "FyreTV" and "FyreTV.com” in 2007 and registered them with the US Patent and Trademark Office in October 2008. In 2011, Amazon began using the mark "Fire" in connection with a variety of devices. On April 2, 2014, Amazon launched "Amazon Fire TV."

Less than two weeks after Amazon launched Amazon Fire TV, Wreal filed a complaint against Amazon in federal court seeking various relief under the Lanham Trademark Act, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Florida common law. Wreal did not conduct any discovery and made only routine case-management filings for more than five months before moving for a preliminary injunction on September 22, 2014. The district court denied Wreal's motion, and Wreal appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, concluding that Wreal's unexplained five-month delay in seeking a preliminary injunction precluded the required finding that Wreal faced irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The court explained that, while a delay in moving for a preliminary is not always fatal to the motion, a delay weighs against the required finding that the movant faces imminent, irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction.

Because Wreal failed to make the required showing of imminent, irreparable harm, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Wreal's motion. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit joined other circuit courts (such as the US Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits) and district courts within the Eleventh Circuit (such as the US District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia and the Southern District of Florida) that have found that a party's failure to act with speed or urgency in moving for a preliminary injunction undermines the necessary finding of irreparable harm.