直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Use” of a Mark on Christmas Card, Affirms Denial of Preliminary Injunction

February 03, 2015

Authored and Edited by Julia Anne Matheson; Danielle Wright Bulger

Most trademark practitioners will not be surprised by the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in New Wave Innovations, Inc. v. McClimond,  No. 14-11466 (11th Cir. Jan. 21, 2015), which affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction after finding that plaintiff made only de minimis use of its mark.

In the dispute, plaintiff New Wave claimed it used the Mr. Foamer mark before the defendants based on a single,  coupon-enclosed Christmas card sent in 2011 that depicted a cartoon foam-generator with the caption: “Christmas Wishes from Mr. Foamer.” After the defendants incorporated Mr. Foamer, Inc. in 2012 and began using the mark for car washing services and goods, New Wave brought suit alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.

2015.02.03_ChristmasCard

 In an unpublished decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that New Wave’s use of the mark constituted nothing more than de minimis use. “The card did not infer that New Wave had a new name or was marketing a product with the name Mr. Foamer; it was a cartoon of one of its products in a Santa hat with a greeting attached,” the court wrote in its opinion. Because New Wave did not establish trademark ownership rights, and did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to deny New Wave’s motion for preliminary injunction.

The TTAB will now be tasked with deciding whether New Wave’s application for the Mr. Foamer mark─filed in June 2014─or Mr. Foamer, Inc.’s application filed in November 2013 receives registration. In light of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, New Wave faces an uphill battle.

Tags

preliminary injunction

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Charitable

2026 ALYN Hospital Wheels of Love Ride

November 8-12, 2026

Northern District

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

2026 Donald R. Dunner Endowed Lecture

October 27, 2026

Washington, DC

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP