has not undertaken any consumer surveys and the record contains no sworn consumer testimony. Similarly, with respect to trade dress infringement, the evidence presented by Hi-Tech does not clearly demonstrate that its trade dresses are distinctive or have acquired secondary meaning. See AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531, 1540 (11th Cir.1986) (recognizing that extensive sales and advertising alone do not necessarily establish secondary meaning). B. Irreparable Harm Even assuming that Hi-Tech had established a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, the Court nevertheless concludes that Hi-Tech is not entitled to a preliminary injunction because it has not demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm. See Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In its brief, Hi-Tech argued that irreparable
holding that evidence of specific competitive injury establishes irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief holding that a court may issue injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates four factors substantial likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm no substantial injury to the other party and furtherance of the public interest holding that injunctive relief may be warranted where there is a particularly strong likelihood of success on the merits even if there is a relatively slight showing of irreparable injury holding that the movant had to establish both of the first two factors ie likelihood of success and irreparable harm to receive a preliminary injunction holding that even when likelihood of success has been established the absence of irreparable injury standing alone makes preliminary injunctive relief improper