Access practice tools, as well as industry leading news, customizable alerts, dockets, and primary content, including a comprehensive collection of case law, dockets, and regulations. Leverage...
Sept. 25 — A Minnesota attorney's advertising using his firm's phone number “612-INJURED” might infringe a marketing firm's “1-800-INJURED” trademark licensed to another law firm, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled Sept. 23.
The court said that the personal injury attorney's advertising might cause a likelihood of confusion with another Minnesota personal injury attorney's use of “1-800-INJURED” in advertising.
The court therefore denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, ruling that there was enough evidence for a jury to find a likelihood of confusion, but not enough to prove it as a matter of law.
Krueger Law Firm of Roseville, Minn., uses “1-800-INJURED” in advertising pursuant to a license from Mountain Marketing Group LLC, which holds a U.S. trademark registration on the term.
Mountain licenses use of “1-800-INJURED” to at least 25 professional service providers throughout the country.
Heimerl & Lammers LLC, Minneapolis, obtained the telephone number “612-INJURED,” and uses the phone number in advertising on billboards in Minnesota.
Mountain sued Heimerl for trademark infringement, arguing that Heimerl's use of the number created a likelihood of confusion with “1-800-INJURED.”
The court determined, based on a six-factor test, that a jury could reasonably find a likelihood of confusion based on:
• The strength of the “1-800-INJURED” mark, which the court said was not merely descriptive because it did not “immediately convey the function of the services offered by Krueger,”
• The similarity between the “1-800-INJURED and “612-INJURED” marks,
• The competing services offered by the two firms,
• Some evidence that Heimerl had intended to “pass off” its services as being associated with Krueger,
• Some evidence of actual confusion, in the form of three specific reports and a consumer survey, and
• The relatively low degree of care exercised by potential customers.
The court also denied Heimerl's motion to dismiss Mountain's request for attorneys' fees, because there was evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Heimerl had infringed the trademark willfully: Heimerl had not conducted a trademark search before using “612-INJURED,” acknowledged the benefit of confusing the public on its billboards, and continued using the mark after receiving cease-and-desist orders and the complaint in this case.
The court set trial for Dec. 14.
Mountain was represented by David P. Jendrzejek of Moss & Barnett P.A., Minneapolis. Heimerl & Lammers was represented by J. Ashwin Madia of Madia Law LLC, Minneapolis.
To contact the reporter on this story: Blake Brittain in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Wilczek at email@example.com
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)