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 In an unpublished decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that New Wave’s use of the mark constituted nothing more than de minimis use.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

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

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