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In an unpublished decision, the Eleventh Circuit held that New Wave’s use of the mark constituted nothing more than de minimis use.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