Protect-A-Car Wash Systems, Inc. v. Car Wash Partners, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 3d 439

Protect-A-Car (DC corp) operates six car washes in the D.C. area and uses marks including “MR WASH”/“Mr. Wash Car Wash.” CWP (Delaware corp), a national operator with the www.mistercarwash.com domain since 1996, expanded into Maryland in 2015 by acquiring two locations.
Protect-A-Car sued CWP and CWP’s CEO Lai asserting Lanham Act claims (trademark infringement, unfair competition/false advertising), an ACPA (cybersquatting) claim, a request to cancel CWP’s federal registrations, and a Maryland unfair competition claim.
Protect-A-Car produced anecdotal evidence of 22 instances of alleged actual confusion (mostly callers trying to cancel CWP’s “Unlimited Wash Club”); only five incidents occurred in Maryland. No consumer survey evidence was offered.
CWP’s marks differ visually and are often presented with a stylized logo; CWP has used its domain and marks nationally since the 1990s and had bona fide business use prior to Protect-A-Car’s alleged claims.
The district court applied the Fourth Circuit nine-factor likelihood-of-confusion test and ACPA bad-faith factors and granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts, concluding Protect-A-Car failed to show a genuine dispute on likelihood of confusion or ACPA bad faith.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trademark infringement / likelihood of confusion (Lanham Act)	Protect-A-Car: its MR WASH marks are protectable and CWP’s use causes consumer confusion, shown by anecdotal incidents and overlapping services/advertising.	CWP: marks are weak/generic, visually/audibly dissimilar, limited geographic overlap, de minimis actual confusion given volume of commerce.	Court: Held for CWP — majority of relevant factors (mark strength, similarity, intent, actual confusion) favor defendants; no genuine issue for trial.
Unfair competition/false advertising (Lanham Act §43(a))	Protect-A-Car: similar argument as infringement; reputation and goodwill harmed.	CWP: no likelihood of confusion; advertising channels and customers differ; no misleading use.	Court: Dismissed with summary judgment for CWP (same reasoning as infringement).
Cybersquatting (ACPA)	Protect-A-Car: CWP’s use of mistercarwash.com is confusing and intended to profit from Protect-A-Car’s mark.	CWP: longstanding, bona fide use of the domain since 1996; lacked bad faith and falls within ACPA safe harbor.	Court: Held for CWP — no bad faith; safe harbor and statutory factors favor defendant.
Cancellation of CWP’s federal registration (15 U.S.C. §1119)	Protect-A-Car: seeks cancellation of CWP’s registrations.	CWP: cancellation depends on prevailing in infringement claim.	Court: Denied — cancellation claim fails because infringement/unfair competition claims fail.

Synergistic Int’l, LLC v. Korman, 470 F.3d 162 (4th Cir.) (framework for Lanham Act infringement analysis)
George & Co. LLC v. Imagination Entm’t Ltd., 575 F.3d 383 (4th Cir.) (nine-factor likelihood-of-confusion analysis; focus on marketplace use)
CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. First Care, P.C., 434 F.3d 263 (4th Cir.) (weight to manner marks appear in marketplace; weakness of mark increases focus on differences)
Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522 (4th Cir.) (early articulation of confusion factors; intent and advertising considerations)
Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. v. James River Petroleum, Inc., 130 F.3d 88 (4th Cir.) (high volume of commerce can render few confusion instances de minimis)
Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir.) (ACPA requires bad-faith intent plus confusingly similar domain)
Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 238 F.3d 264 (4th Cir.) (ACPA background and bad-faith factors)
Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455 (4th Cir.) (use of product quality and buyer sophistication factors in confusion analysis)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment standard — genuine dispute of material fact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (summary judgment burden allocation)