WORLDCARE Trademark Injunction Part III
Written by Jay Lewis
Irreparable Harm
The Court presumed the threat of irreparable harm to the movant based on the likelihood of confusion and success on the merits. Because trademarks are similar to “intangible assets such as reputation and goodwill, a showing of irreparable injury can be satisfied if it appears that [the movant] can demonstrate a likelihood of consumer confusion.” General Mills, 824 F.2d at 625.
Public Interest
So after finding (1) the balance of harms weighed in favor of Worldcare, (2) Worldcare was likely to demonstrate consumer confusion and therefore likely succeed on the merits and (3) Irreparable harm was presumed based on the consumer confusion; the Court found that (4) an injunction favors the public interest. “A strong public interest exists in preventing confusion as to the source of products and services included in a medical coverage insurance policy, and as to who will be providing those services.” Worldcare.
After careful examination, the Court ordered the following:
- The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff WorldCare Limited Corporation is granted; and
- Defendant World Insurance Company and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with World Insurance, are enjoined from using the designation "WORLDCARE" or any other name or mark confusingly similar to "WORLDCARE," either alone or in combination with other words or symbols, as part of any trademark, service mark, trade name, product name, corporate name, assumed name, domain name, Web site name, email address or in any other manner in connection with healthcare or medical-related services during the pendency of this action.
For in-depth discussion of Trademark Infringement, see Chapter 10 of Handling the Business Emergency.
