India-American Cultural Association, Inc v. Ilink Professionals, Inc.
296 Ga. 668
| Ga. | 2015Background
- IACA (nonprofit) operated the "Miss India Georgia" and "Miss Teen India Georgia" pageants from 1987–2010 and planned none in 2011–2012 due to budget issues.
- In 2012 iLink promoted and hosted the pageants (with IACA as a sponsor); iLink filed state registrations for both service marks in April 2013 and began promoting a 2013 pageant.
- IACA announced its own 2013 pageants for a week earlier; both parties sought sponsors and promoted events.
- iLink sued for infringement of the registered service marks and obtained an interlocutory injunction preventing IACA from using the contested names for the July 2013 events (the injunction did not bar IACA from holding pageants under different names).
- IACA appealed, arguing the court improperly treated state registration as dispositive and ignored IACA’s alleged status as senior prior user and lack of abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory injunction was proper to preserve status quo | iLink: registration + evidence showing IACA abandoned marks and iLink was operating 2012–2013 pageants | IACA: long prior use as senior user, never abandoned rights, registration is permissive | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; injunction preserved status quo and prevented irreparable harm |
| Legal effect of Georgia state registration of service marks | iLink: registration permits statutory injunctive remedies and creates presumption of ownership | IACA: registration is permissive and cannot automatically defeat prior common-law rights | Held: registration gives a rebuttable presumption of validity and enables statutory injunctive relief under OCGA §§10-1-450–451, supporting interim relief |
| Whether evidence of abandonment/assignment precluded injunction | iLink: affidavits and complaint allegations supported abandonment/assignment | IACA: affidavits disputed those factual assertions | Held: facts were disputed; conflicting evidence does not show abuse of discretion in granting or denying injunction |
| Standard of review for interlocutory injunction | iLink: defer to trial court’s broad discretion | IACA: court misapplied law about registration and senior-user rights | Held: appellate court will not overturn absent legal error or no evidence on essential element; none shown here |
Key Cases Cited
- Holton v. Physician Oncology Svcs., LP, 292 Ga. 864 (broad discretion and factors for interlocutory injunction)
- Jansen-Nichols v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 295 Ga. 786 (conflicting evidence does not compel reversal of injunction ruling)
- SRB Investment Svcs., LLLP v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1 (four-factor framework for temporary injunctions)
- Giant Mart Corp. v. Giant Discount Foods, Inc., 247 Ga. 775 (statutory and common-law protection of trade names)
- Womble v. Parker, 208 Ga. 378 (registration permissive; does not by itself override prior common-law rights)
- Diedrich v. Miller & Meier & Associates, Architects & Planners, 254 Ga. 734 (registration prerequisite for certain statutory remedies)
- Kyle v. Ga. Lottery Corp., 304 Ga. App. 635 (prior state registration gives rise to rebuttable presumption of validity)