to standing solely because of the allegation in its petition”). In fact, the gravamen of this whole litigation is not that Defendants cannot obtain angus beef, but that they want to use the phrase “Certified Angus Beef’ to describe and promote their angus beef program. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has used the certification mark as a service mark or trademark. Nonetheless, the evidence presented to counter Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment shows no conduct by Plaintiff other than promotion and advertising, both of which obviously are allowed and used by organizations holding certification marks. See, e.g., State of Florida v. Real Juices, Inc., 330 F.Supp. 428 (M.D.Fla.1971); Camel Hair & Cashmere Institute, Inc. v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 799 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); West Indian Sea Island Cotton Ass’n, supra.
holding that intangible injuries such as damage to advertising efforts and goodwill can be irreparable harm for purpose of a preliminary injunction holding that even though irreparable harm is not required it had been shown and weighed in favor of issuance of the preliminary injunction holding that the plaintiff had failed to show irreparable injury warranting a preliminary injunction because it had not engaged in sufficient advertising or promotional activities to achieve a reputation holding that evidence of specific competitive injury establishes irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief 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