Thomas Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, 708 F.3d 614

Abraham founded Paddle Tramps (1961) to manufacture and sell fraternity/sorority paddles using Greek names, crests, and insignia.
Paddle Tramps advertised and marketed products bearing Greek marks since the 1960s, including online display since 1997.
Greek Organizations (32 entities) and Affinity Marketing Consultants sent licensing and litigation letters starting in 1990s, culminating in a 2007 suit in Florida later transferred to ongoing litigation.
District court found Abraham infringed and diluted marks; laches and acquiescence defenses were disputed; jury found laches and acquiescence for Pi Kappa Alpha, and no unclean hands against Abraham.
District court issued permanent injunction restricting Abraham’s future uses of marks, except for a narrow “double raised crest backing” product; the court balanced equities and concluded injunction appropriate despite laches.
Abraham appealed the injunction primarily on laches grounds and breadth of the injunction; Greek Organizations cross-appealed on jury instructions and scope of injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions on laches/unclean hands were proper	Abraham lacked clean hands; instruction allowed presumption of bad faith.	Abraham lacked bad faith; instructions properly distinguished infringement from unclean hands.	Instructions proper; deference to district court’s framing of laches/unclean hands.
Whether evidence supports laches and undue prejudice findings	Delay was unexcused and prejudicial to Greek Organizations.	Evidence showed lack of excuse via progressive encroachment and substantial prejudice from delayed enforcement.	Evidence supports laches and undue prejudice findings.
Whether injunction appropriately balances equities given laches	Injunction should be broader to bar all infringing uses.	Balance favored narrower relief (excluding double raised crest backing).	District court did not abuse discretion; injunction tailored to minimize prejudice.
Whether double raised crest backing should be enjoined	All infringing items including backings should be enjoined.	Backings drove sales and should be enjoined only if prejudicial.	Discretion upheld; backings excepted as necessary to avoid substantial prejudice.

Conan Properties, Inc. v. Conans Pizza, Inc., 752 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1985) (unclean hands require knowledge-based bad-faith intent; presumption limited to confusion, not goodwill appropriation)
Smack Apparel Co. v. University of Pittsburgh, 550 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2008) (unclean hands shown where infringer admitted intent to capitalize on goodwill)
Champion Products, Inc. v. University of Pittsburgh, 686 F.2d 1040 (3d Cir. 1982) (undue prejudice inquiry in laches context; degree of prejudice matters)
Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1998) (undue prejudice concept discussed in context of balancing equities; not decisive test)
Westchester Media v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc., 214 F.3d 658 (5th Cir. 2000) (First Amendment considerations in injunctions; preference for disclaimers in some cases)
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (S. Ct. 2006) (permanent injunction standard; four-factor test applied to determine irreparable injury and balance of equities)
Armco, Inc. v. Armco Burglar Alarm Co., Inc., 693 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1982) (equitable defenses and injunctions interplay in trademark context)