Case Explained: DMARCIAN, INC. Plaintiff – v. DMARC ADVISOR BV, f/k/a dmarcian Europe BV Defendant –

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s second amended preliminary injunction against DMARC Advisor BV (dBV) and dismissed the remainder of dBV’s appeal regarding correction and contempt orders. Regarding the injunction, the court held that it comports with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.*, which replaced the “effects” test with a “conduct-focused” analysis for Lanham Act claims. The court determined that dBV engaged in sufficient infringing conduct within the United States to justify the application of U.S. law, specifically finding that dBV marketed services and executed direct sales to American customers through a targeted website, satisfying the “infringing use in commerce” requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a). Additionally, the court found the injunction permissible under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and North Carolina common law due to dBV’s domestic acts in furtherance of trade secret misappropriation and tortious interference. The court rejected dBV’s argument that the injunction violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1), concluding the order provided sufficient notice given the context of the litigation and the need to prevent evasion. Regarding the correction order and civil contempt order, the court dismissed these appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court reasoned that neither order qualified as a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because any harm caused was either retrospective and irremediable (regarding international comity) or reparable through monetary refund after a final judgment, thus failing the “effectively unreviewable” requirement of the collateral order doctrine. Furthermore, the court found no pendent appellate jurisdiction existed as the issues were not inextricably intertwined with the appealable injunction. The court also denied dBV’s request for reassignment of the district judge, finding no unusual circumstances warranted such a remedy given the judge’s familiarity with the case and conscientious handling of the proceedings. The practical consequence is that the second amended preliminary injunction remains in full force, prohibiting dBV from using dInc’s trademarks or trade secrets in ways accessible to U.S. customers and restricting its ability to solicit American clients. The administrative stay on the trial is lifted, allowing the parties to proceed to the main events of the litigation. The correction and contempt orders remain in place pending a potential future appeal after a final judgment.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.