running ads that feature the half-bottle of Gatorade, or any other Gatorade trademarks or logos, SVC’s request for injunctive relief based on alleged trademark dilution by tarnishment is also moot. 6. SVC argues that its request to enjoin Coca-Cola from running these ads is not moot because Coca-Cola’s alleged record of following a “cheat and retreat” strategy evinces bad faith and a likelihood that it will resume the ads. However, SVC’s fear that Coca-Cola will resume the ads is speculative at best and does not warrant a preliminary injunction in light of Coca-Cola’s sworn declarations and testimony under oath that it will not resume the ads during the course of this litigation. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Rogovich, No. 03 Civ. 3870, 2003 WL 21436215, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2003) (<HOLDING>). Coca-Cola’s cessation of the ads and its
holding that speculative fears ascribing dishonesty to defendants assurances that he would not resume allegedly unlawful actions were not immediate enough to justify the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction holding that an accounting is an extraordinary remedy holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction