Midwest Medical and Occupational Services, SC. v. SSM Healthcare, 3:17-cv-00388

Midwest Medical opened a walk-in clinic in Mount Vernon in 2013 using the name “Express Care of Mt. Vernon” and registered that trade name with the Illinois Secretary of State in 2014.
SSM Health operates a nearby walk-in clinic that was renamed during a system rebranding from “Good Samaritan Convenient Care” to “SSM Health Express Clinic” in 2015–2016.
Both clinics provide urgent-care services and are the only two such centers in Mt. Vernon; Midwest Medical documented over 100 instances of alleged actual confusion after SSM’s name change.
Midwest Medical sued under the Lanham Act and parallel Illinois statutes and common law for trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices; both parties moved for summary judgment.
The central legal questions were whether “Express Care” (or “Express Care of Mt. Vernon”) is a protectable mark (generic, descriptive, or otherwise) and, if protectable, whether SSM’s use caused likelihood of confusion or was excused by a fair use defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Protectability of “Express Care”	The name is a protectable trademark identifying Plaintiff's clinic.	The term is generic or, at best, descriptive and not protectable absent secondary meaning.	“Express Care of Mt. Vernon” is descriptive, not inherently distinctive; not protectable without secondary meaning.
Secondary meaning	Actual customer confusion shows the name acquired secondary meaning.	Plaintiff’s use was short and advertising evidence is limited; confusion alone cannot establish secondary meaning.	Plaintiff failed to show sufficient evidence of secondary meaning (short use, limited advertising).
Likelihood of confusion	SSM’s adoption of “SSM Health Express Clinic” likely confused consumers.	No enforceable mark exists; alternatively, SSM’s branding emphasizes SSM Health so confusion is unlikely.	Court did not reach likelihood inquiry because there is no protected mark.
Fair use defense	N/A (argued against by Plaintiff)	SSM used the term descriptively, not as a trademark, and in good faith as part of a system rebrand.	Even if mark were protectable, SSM established fair use: non‑trademark use, descriptive use, and good faith.

Packman v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628 (7th Cir.) (framework for trademark protectability and confusion analysis)
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (U.S.) (inherent distinctiveness spectrum for marks)
Platinum Home Mortgage Corp. v. Platinum Financial Grp., Inc., 149 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.) (secondary meaning factors and limits of actual confusion evidence)
Sorensen v. WD-40 Co., 792 F.3d 712 (7th Cir.) (elements of nominative/fair use and non-trademark use analysis)