An Ohio state appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling, denying a sports training organization’s request for a preliminary injunction against a soccer team that was allegedly using its trademarks.
The appeals court based its decision, at least in part, on the fact that there “was no likelihood of confusion between the organization and the Michigan team.” It also found that the defendant would be harmed “if it was forced to change its name because at the time of the decision, the Michigan team had been developing its brand and advertising in anticipation of its inaugural season.”
The plaintiff, Ignition Athletic Performance Group, is a Cincinnati-based sports training organization, which was formed in May 2004. The company works with participants of all ages and abilities in a variety of sports, though its primary customers are high-school athletes, and its most popular sport is soccer. In fact, it hosts soccer camps in Ohio and advertises at athletic events. It advertises primarily in Ohio.
Ignition uses logos bearing its name and a flame to represent the company. It also sponsors a professional soccer team in Cincinnati, the Cincinnati Kings, which has the Ignition logo on the front of its jerseys.
In April 2006, the Major Indoor Soccer League announced the name of a new expansion team in Detroit, the “Detroit Ignition.” The team is owned and operated by Hantz Soccer U.S.A. The logo of the Detroit Ignition consists of an ignition spark plug, a soccer ball, and the term “Detroit Ignition.” The team advertises in the metro-Detroit area, but it has exposure in the cities in which it competes. Hantz intends to operate a soccer camp for youths in the metro-Detroit area, taught by the professional team’s players and coaches.
In August 2008, the Ignition brought a suit against Hantz for trademark/service mark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, for false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and seeking a declaratory judgment that any promotion or sales involving the Detroit Ignition would infringe on the Ignition mark and logo. Ignition also moved for entry of a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the request for the temporary restraining order in August 2006 and the request for the preliminary injunction in September 2006. The plaintiff appealed.
The appeals court noted that the standard for reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction is abuse of discretion. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Amouri’s Grand Foods, Inc., 453 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2006). In considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the district court must take into account “(1) the likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits, (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, (3) the probability that granting the injunction will cause substantial harm to others and (4) whether the public interest will be advanced by issuing the injunction.” Id. at 380.
The appeals court determined that the first factor was a wash, which had an impact on the second factor. “Irreparable harm normally follows when there is a likelihood of confusion or risk to reputation. Lorillard, 453 F.3d at 381-82. … Therefore Ignition does not succeed on the merits and irreparable harm does not necessarily follow.”
As illuminated above, the court did find that the defendant would suffer harm if it was forced to change its name. It also found that “there is a public interest in ‘preventing confusion and deception in the marketplace and protecting the trademark holder’s property interest in the mark.’ Id. at 383. However, because Ignition and Detroit Ignition are in different cities and their goods are substantially different, there is no likelihood of confusion between Ignition and Detroit Ignition.”
Ignition Athletic Performance Group, LLC v. Hantz Soccer U.S.A., LLC; Ct.App. 6th Cir.; No. 06-2308;2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19091; 2007 FED App. 0554N (6th Cir.); 8/08/07
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Theodore R. Remaklus, Wood, Herron & Evans, Cincinnati, OH; Michael V. Kell, Howard & Howard, Bloomfield Hills, MI. (for defendant) David J. Shea, The Shea Law Firm, Southfield, MI.
