Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order v. Florida Priory of Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order
816 F. Supp. 2d 1290
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- SMOM sues Florida Priory for trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and FDUPTA; Florida Priory answers with counterclaims seeking cancellation of several SMOM registrations.
- Bench trial held Feb. 28–Mar. 2, 2011; court issues findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- SMOM and Ecumenical Order share a pre-1798 history; Ecumenical Order and Florida Priory use marks in the United States.
- SMOM holds multiple registrations (Nos. 2,783,934; 2,783,933; 2,915,824; 3,056,803; 2,799,898); Florida Priory challenges several registrations as fraudulent or improper.
- Court cancels four SMOM registrations for fraud (with intent to deceive) and finds no likelihood of confusion between SMOM’s marks and the Florida Priory’s marks; false advertising and FDUPTA claims rejected; injunctive relief denied; final judgment in favor of Florida Priory on counterclaims and against SMOM on the amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud in obtaining registrations? | SMOM argues registrations were proper and not procured by fraud. | Florida Priory argues SMOM knowingly misrepresented to PTO about other uses and entities. | Registrations 2,783,933; 2,783,934; 2,915,824; 3,056,803 cancelled for fraud. |
| Whether Florida Priory infringes SMOM’s registered marks? | SMOM claims likelihood of confusion with Florida Priory’s marks. | Florida Priory disputes similarity and consumer confusion. | No likelihood of confusion; Florida Priory’s unregistered mark distinguished; SMOM’s registered mark 2,799,898 not infringed. |
| Liability for unregistered mark under § 43(a)? | SMOM seeks protection for unregistered marks against emboldened use. | Defendant argues PTO proceeding pending and unregistered marks less protectable. | Court defers ruling on unregistered mark until PTO disposition. |
| False advertising under § 1125(a)? | SMOM alleges deceptive history references by Florida Priory. | Florida Priory contends history references are permissible. | False advertising claim rejected. |
| FDUPTA claim viability? | SMOM alleges unfair practices by misrepresenting affiliation. | Florida Priory asserts no deceptive acts. | FDUPTA claim failes; no deceptive conduct found. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (fraud requires knowing misrepresentation with intent to deceive; intent inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (U.S. 2011) (willful blindness standard for knowledge of wrongdoing)
- Swatch Watch, S.A. v. Taxor, Inc., 785 F.2d 956 (11th Cir. 1986) (seven-factor likelihood-of-confusion test)
- Ocean Bio-Chem, Inc. v. Turner Network Television, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 1546 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (multifactor likelihood-of-confusion framework)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (U.S. 1992) (unregistered marks protection under § 43(a) mirrors registered marks)
- Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001) (unfair competition analyzed via federal infringement standards)
- Natural Answers, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 529 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2008) (FDUPTA and Lanham Act standards align for state-law claims)
- Investacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Inv. Bank Corp. (Investcorp) E.C., 931 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1991) (unfair competition analysis and reliance on federal standards)