on the named topic. Plaintiffs have some likelihood of success of proving that some of the childish and mean statements made on the website defame Silva or disparage SNA, if they are able to point to particular statements and prove the required elements as to those particular statements, which they have not successfully done on the present record. If they do, there will an adequate remedy at law for damages if the statements are untrue and there is no persuasive showing of irreparable injury which can be prevented by a preliminary injunction at this time. Trademark Infringement In trademark infringement cases, the ongoing likelihood of confusion itself constitutes an irreparable injury. See Opticians Ass’n of Amer. v. Independent Opticians of Amer., 920 F.2d 187, 195-97 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the irreparable injury inquiry is
holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion holding that the use of the shoneys name over any subsidiary product line mark  reduces the likelihood of confusion holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim holding that since we have already held that the concurrent use of plaintiffs mark by the defendants creates the likelihood of confusion the inescapable conclusion is that there was also irreparable injury holding that the lack of control over ones mark creates the potential for damage to  reputation which constitutes irreparable injury for the purpose of granting a preliminary injunction in a trademark case