HealthOne of Denver, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
872 F. Supp. 2d 1154
D. Colo.2012Background
- HealthONE sues UnitedHealth for trademark infringement and related claims over UnitedHealthOne use of a mark resembling HEALTHONE.
- HealthONE holds multiple HEALTHONE registrations; UnitedHealth marketed individual insurance under UnitedHealthOne beginning 2008.
- UnitedHealth argued no likelihood of confusion and moved for summary judgment; HealthONE opposed, alleging substantial, disputed confusion.
- Court analyzes likelihood of confusion using the usual factors; HealthONE asserts confusion due to mark similarity, related services, and actual confusion.
- Court also addresses HealthONE’s Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) claim and grants summary judgment for UnitedHealth on that claim; other claims survive for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of confusion between HEALTHONE and UNITEDHEALTHONE | HealthONE argues marks are confusingly similar | UnitedHealth says marks are dissimilar and used for different services | Genuine issues exist; likelihood of confusion may be found in aggregate |
| Strength of HealthONE's mark | Marks are strong due to registrations and policing | Marks are weak descriptively | Conceptual weakness but commercial strength; overall neutral impact on confusion |
| Evidence of actual confusion | There is tangible evidence of confusion | Evidence is de minimis or unreliable | Surveys and anecdotes show some confusion but weight depends on methodology; genuine issue remains |
| Intent of UnitedHealth in adopting UnitedHealthOne | Intent to benefit from HealthONE's goodwill | Brand reform driven by market testing, not HealthONE's reputation | No clear evidence of intent to derive benefit from HealthONE; weighs against finding intent |
| HealthONE's CCPA claim | Advertising by UnitedHealthOne affects the public | Advertising alone does not show deceptive or misleading conduct | Granted in favor of UnitedHealth; CCPA claim is dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 22 F.3d 1527 (10th Cir. 1994) (likelihood of confusion assessed by multiple factors; not dispositive by itself)
- King of the Mountain Sports, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 185 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999) (no single factor controls likelihood of confusion; weigh all factors)
- Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. Beautyco, Inc., 304 F.3d 964 (10th Cir. 2002) (presents standards for evaluating confusion and evidentiary weight of surveys)
- First Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. First Bank Sys., 101 F.3d 645 (10th Cir. 1996) (conceptual strength vs. commercial strength; impact on trademark strength)