FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT April 4, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1146 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-03620 -CV -JTC -1 ANGEL FLIGHT OF GEORGIA, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ANGEL FLIGHT AMERICA, INC., In te rv en or -D ef en dant, App el la nt , ANGEL FLIGHT SOUTHEAST, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 4, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BL A CK

and H IL L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e:2

Si nc e the e ar ly

198 0s, pr ivate pil ot o rg an iz at ion s have ope rate d th ro ugho ut the U nit ed

S ta te s, arr an gin g f

or vol unt ee r pil ots to tr an spor t ne edy pa tie nts and donate d or gans t o ho spi ta ls aro und the c ountry . H ist or ic al ly , m any of the se organizations h ave used the service m ark “ Angel Flight” to prom ote their services an d s ol ic itdo na ti on s. I n 2 0 0 0 , an u mb e r

o f p r i v a t e p i l o to r g a n i z a t i o n s b a n d e dt o g e t h e r t o f o rm a na tio na l a sso ci at ionkno w n a s A nge l F lig ht A m er ic a (A FA ). T he ne wa sso ci at ion div ide d th e co untry

int o te rr ito ri al z one s, auth or iz ing it s m em be rs to ope rate in designated g eographical regions usi ng the Angel Flight m ark. For r easons that are unc le ar , se ve ra l l ongs tandi ng A nge l F lig ht o rg an iz at ion s, inc lud ing A nge l F lig ht G eo rg ia( A FG A ), did

not be co m e m em

be rs of A FA . N ev er

the le ss, the se or ganiz at ion s c ont inu ed

ope ratin g inthe ir

hom e te rr ito ri es usi ng the A nge l F lig ht m ark . Whe n A FAm em

be r A nge l F lig ht S outhe as t ( A FS E ) es ta bli she d of

fi ce s in G eo rg iaand b eg ansol ic iti ng d onatio ns i n are as w he re A FG Aha d tr ad iti ona lly ope rate d, A FG Asue d A FAand A FS E f or c om m on l awtr ad em ar

k in fr ing em en t an d vari ous re la te d vi olatio ns o f state and f ed er al law . A FAc ount er cl ai m ed f or inf ri nge m en t of

it s U nit ed

S ta te s T ra de m ar

k N o. 1, 491, 541 (the A nge l F lig ht m ark ) an d o th er re la te d c la im s.3

Fo ll owi ng a fi ve -d ay

be nc h t ria l, t he di st ric t co ur t fo un d i n fa vo r of AFGA on a ll cl ai m s and l at er

iss ue d ape rm an en t i nj unc tio n pr ohi bit ing A FAand i ts m em be rs f ro m usi ng the A nge l F lig ht m ar k inG eo rg ia , A la

bam a, Mi ssi ssi ppi , T enne sse e, N orth C ar oli na , and S outh C ar oli naf or the pur pose of sol ic iti ng do na ti on s, ad ve rti si ng or p ro m ot in g t he ir s erv ic es , or re cru it in g v ol un te ers . I. FACTS A . H istoryofA nge l F

lig ht In198 2, Ja ck

W el sh, apil ot l ivi ng i n C al if or nia , f orm ed an or ganiz at ion ca lle d th e A m er ic anMe dic al F lig ht S uppo rt T eam ( A MF ST ). T he or ganiz at ion consist ed of volun teer pilots who agreed to provide free transportation for don ated organs and m edical patients to ensure the tim ely rec eipt of needed m edical se rv ic es . C ha

pte rs of the ne wor ganiz at ionspr an g up a cr oss the c ountry . Many of th es e ch ap te rs ev en tu al ly ado pt edth e n am e “ Ang el Fli gh t” as t he ir s erv ic e m ark . Over tim e, the chapters lost their connection to the original organization , but they co nt in ue d t he ir m is si on of p ro vi di ng free a ir t ran sp or ta ti on form ed ic al ser vi ces . The org an iz at io ns co nt in ue d t o u se th e Ang el Fli gh t m ark . In 1983, an AMF ST chapter w as form ed in Georgia. It later took th e nam e A nge l F lig ht o f G eo rg ia( A FG A ). T he or ganiz at ionw as the f ir st g ro up e as t of

the Rocky Mountains to use the nam e A ngel Flight andthe first group to use th e m ark4

in each of the six states in which it operates (G eorgia, Alabam a, South Carolina, Mississ ippi, North Carolina, and T ennessee). A FG A used the A ngel Flight m ark co nt in uo us ly from

th e 1 98 0s on ward . I n 1 9 8 6 , an A M F S T c h ap t e r f o rme di n F l o r i d a . T h i s g r o up l a t e r b e c a me known as AFS E. T he organization op erate d prim arily within the state of Florida, but m ad e pe ri odi c handof

fs in the A FG Ate rr ito ry . F or se ve ra l y ears dur ing the 1990 s, A FG Ac ontra ct ed

w ithA FS E to co or din at e A FG A ’ s f lig hts ; the arra ng em en t en de d i n 1 99 9. Atso m e p oi nt du rin g t he 19 90 s, AFSE an d AFGA co ns id eredm erg in g, b ut fai le d t o d o s o. In200 0, anum

be r of r eg ion al A nge l F lig ht o rg an iz at ion s c am e tog ethe r to fo rm A FA . A lth oughm any

r eg ion al A nge l F lig ht o rg an iz at ion s j oin ed the a s s o c i a t i o n , s e v e r a l d i dn o t . Amo n g th o s e wa s AF G A . M e mb e r s o f th e n e w l yform ed organization div ided the count ry into geog raphic regions, w ith each acce pt in g re sp on si bi li ty for a re gi on . Be fo re j oin ing A FA , A FS E se rv ed F lor ida pa tie nts and m ed ic al f

ac ili tie s, tr an spor tin g patie nts and o rg an s in to and o ut o f the state of F lor ida . A ft er

j oin ing A FA , A FS E be gan op er at ing in Fl or ida , G eo rg ia , Mi ssi ssi ppi , A la bam a, and S outh Caro lin a. A FS E a lso be gan r ec ru iti ng d onor s and p ro m oti ng i ts s er vic es a t tra de sh ows an d t o m ed ic al faci li ti es wit hi n AFGA’s t erri to ry .5

In200 1, A FG Abe cam e aw ar e of A FS E ’ s pl an s to ope n an of fi ce in A ugus ta , G eo rg ia . O n M ay 8, 200 3, a ft er

A FG Aa lle ge dly

le ar ne d do nor s and the ne w s m ed iaw er e co nf

usi ng the tw o or ganiz at ion s, A FG Aw ro te to A FS E , a ski ng it to sto p prom oting its services under the Angel Flight m ark in Ge orgia, A labam a, South Carolina, Mississipp i, N orth Carolina, and Tennessee. When AFS E r efused to do so , AFGA fil edsu it . B . T he R eg ister ed

M ark Som etim e in the ear ly

1980 s, an A MSFT chapter in L as Ve gas, N evada, developed a m ark that com bined th e w ords “ The Angel Flight” with a winged caduceus. During the sam e period of tim e, a L os Angeles-based AM SFT chapter (l at er kno w n a s A nge l F lig ht W es t) be gan us ing the sam e m ar k, w ithpe rm iss ion fr om the L as V eg as c ha

pte r. Whe n th e L as V eg as gr oup la te r be cam e de func t, A nge l F lig ht W es t c ont inu ed to use the m ar

k, w hic h it

m odi fi ed sli ght ly by altering the design o f the w ings andadding a sty lized ty pe to the words “ Angel Flight.” In198 7, a ft er

c onf irm ing the L as V eg as or ganiz at ionw as no l onge r in ex ist en ce , A nge l F lig ht W es t a ppl ie d f or r eg istratio n of

the m odi fi ed

m ar k. T he registration application wa s com pleted by De nnis Torres, then-president of Angel Fl igh t W es t. O n th e ap pli catio n, T or re s li ste d a“ fi rs t us e” da te of N ove m be r 21,6

1983 . That date preceded the cr eation of the m odified log o by m ore than three y ears . Inthe sam e tr ad em ar

k a ppl ic at ion , T or

re s r ep re se nte d th at

A nge l F lig ht W es t w as the ow ne r of

the m ar k and, to the be st o f his kno w le dge and b el ie f, no oth er pe rs on, f irm , c or por at ion , or

a sso ci at ionha d th e ri ght to use the m ar

k in co m m er ce , e ith er

in anide nti ca l f

orm or ane ar r es em blanc e suc h a s w oul d be lik el y to ca use c onf usi on o r m ist ak e or

de ce ive . D es pit e thi s r ep re se ntatio n, a t the tim e the r eg istratio n a

ppl ic at ionw as c om

ple te d, oth er

or ganiz at ion s w er e usi ng the nam e A nge l F lig ht ( or T he A nge l F lig ht) in co nne ct ionw ithvol unt ee r pil ot ef fo rt s inoth er

state s. S om e of

the se gr oups w er e in c ont ac t w ithA nge l F lig ht W es t. On June 7, 1988, the Patent and Tra dem ark O ffice issued U.S . T radem ark N o. 1, 491, 541 to Ange l F lig ht W es t f or the f oll ow ing c om

bin at ionof

w or ds and sym bol s:

In May 2001 , Angel Flight We st assign ed the registered m ark to the newly -form ed AFA. In turn, AFA l ic en se d t he m arkto it s af fil ia te d m em

be r or ga ni zat io ns .7

C. Proc ee din gs i n th e D istric t C ourt On N ovem

ber 23, 2003, A FG A f

iled suit agains t AF SE alleging AFSE had engaged in false designatio n of origin and false advertising under the Lanham Ac t an d c om m on l awtr ad em ar

k in fr ing em en t, unf

ai r co m pe tit ion , de ce pti ve tr ad e pr ac tic es , and o the r re la te d st at e lawc la im s. Whe n A FAint er ve ne d inthe law sui t six m onths l at er , A FAand A FS E r ai se d c ount er cl ai m s m ir ro ri ng those br ough t ag ai ns t t he m

by A FGA. InJul y 200 6, the dis tr ic t c ourt c ondu ct ed af ive -d ay be nc h tr ia l. A ft er

w ar d, the c ourt i ssu ed

a95- pa ge opi nio n, a dopt ing w ithsli ght m odi fi catio n th e fa ct s and le ga l c onc lus ion s pr opounde d by A FG A . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d inA FG A ’ s f

av or on a ll its c la im s, and a ga ins t A FAand A FS E on e ac h of the ir c ount er cl ai m s. T he co urt de te rm ine d A nge l F lig ht W es t ha d c om m itt ed f ra ud o n th e Pate nt and Tr adem ark O ffice by

falsify ing in form ation on its application for tra dem ark re gis tr at ion , inc lud ing the da te of f ir st u se and i ts k

now le dge of

oth er s’ r igh t t o us e the m ark in an identical or nearly identical fashion. Four m onth s later, the court en te re d ape rm an en t i nj unc tio n, e nj oin ing de fe ndant A FAand i ts m em be rs f ro m usi ng the A nge l F lig ht m ar k inG eo rg ia , A la

bam a, Mi ssi ssi ppi , T enne sse e, N orth Caro lin a, or

S outh C ar oli naf

or the pur pose of sol ic iti ng d onatio ns, a dve rt isi ng,8

prom oting their services, or rec ruiting v olun teers. A t the sam e tim e, the court can cel le d U.S. Trad em arkNo. 1 ,49 1,5 41 . II. DISCUSS ION AF A and AFSE raise f

our issues o n appeal. T hey contend the dis trict court er re d by ( 1) r el y ing on h ears ay

te sti m ony

to fi nd the ir

use of the A nge l F lig ht m ark in AF GA ’ s territory resulted in actual confusion , and thu s constit uted infringem ent; (2) re fusing to apply the doctrine of laches or a cquiescence to bar A FG A ’ s e nf

or ce m en t of

it s c om m on l awr igh ts i n th e m ar k; ( 3) c ra ft ing an ov er ly br oa d, “ dr ac oni an ” inj unc tio n; and ( 4) c an ce lli ng Unit ed S ta te s T ra de m ar

k N o. 1,4 91 ,54 1 o n t he gro un d An ge l Fl ig ht W es t p ro cu reditfrau du le nt ly. A . I nfr ing em en t Fo llo w ing tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound A FG Aw as the se nio r use r of the A nge l F lig ht m ar

k inthe r el ev an t ge ogr ap hic al r eg ion —af ind ing appe llants do not c ha lle nge on a

ppe al . A s th e se nio r use r of the m ar k, A FG Aha d th e ri ght

to use the m ar

k init s te rr ito ry

and t o e nj oinoth er s f

ro m doi ng s o inam anne r lik el y to cau se co nf

us io n. See Custom M

fg. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Midway Servs. , I nc. , 508 F. 3d. 641, 647 (11th Cir. 2007 ) (“ [T ] he touchsto ne of liability in a tradem ark infringem ent action is not sim ply whether there is unauthorized use of a protected m ar k, but w he the r suc h us e is l ike ly to ca use c onsum er

c onf usi on. ”) ; Je lli be ans,In their ar guments befor e the district cour t, the parties c ited only

fede ral c ases whe n 1 dis c us sin gAF GA ’s tr a de mark c la ims and

the e qu ita

ble de fe ns e s A F A a

nd AF SE r a ise d to tho se claims. They

have done the same in this Court. Howeve r, it is clear from the c omplaint that AF GA ’s tr a de mark

inf ri ng e me nt c la im a

ro se un de r s tate law, no t f e de ra l la w. Cpt . ¶ ¶ 4 1- 42 ; see also Dist. Ct. “Findings of Fa ct and Conclusions of L aw” dated Nov. 20, 2006, at 3-4 (her einaf ter “Dist. Ct. Order” ) (c atalog ing A FGA ’s claims, includingits claim of “common law tr adema rk infring ement”) . Geor g ia law ther efor e g overns the tr adema rk cla ims at issue on appea l. Neve rtheless, re cognizi ngthe pauc ity of Ge org ia ca ses addr essingcommon law tra demar k infring ement, we look to feder al law a s persua sive authority , as Ge org ia cour ts themselves have done on occ asion. See Ack erman Se c. Sys., I

nc. v. D esign Sec . Sys., Inc . , 201 Ga. App. 805, 807, 412 S.E.2d 588, 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). 9 Inc. v. Skating

Clubs of Ga., Inc. , 716 F . 2d 8 33, 839 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) ( not ing te st fo r se rv ic e m ar

k in fr ing em en t ha s “be ene xpr es se d a s w he the r or not the of fe ndi ng m ark is ‘ likely

to cause confusion’”) . 1 Init s or de r fo llo w ing tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ovi de d tw o r ea sons f or concludin g AFAand AF SE had infringed AFG A’ s com m on law rights. F irst, the court found cons um er c onfusio n was likely given the m anner in which A FSE used the m ark in the relevant ter ritory . Second, the c ourt foundAF SE ’ s use of the m ark ha d r es ult ed

in the a ct ua l c onf usi on o f hosp ita l e m

plo y ee s and w oul d- be don or s on m or e th an 10 0 o ccas io ns . A FAand A FS E obj ec t stro ngl y to the e vid en tiary

ba sis f or the inc ide nts of

“ actual confusion” refer

red to in the district court order, c ontend ing it was ina dm iss ibl e he ar say . N o c onf use d do nor s or

m ed ic al pe rs onne l t es tif

ie d a t tri al ; rather, two A FG A e m

ploy ees testified re garding the cont ent of conversations th ey10

allegedly had with w ould -be donors and m edical personnel, in w hich the don ors r e p o rt e dmi s d i r e c t i n g d o n a t i o n s an dth e me d i c a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s r e p o rt e dp r o b l e ms wit h m ed ic al tra ns po rta ti on . In al l ca se s, t hi rdpa rti es all eg ed ly con fu se d AFGA wit h AFS E, andvi ce-v ers a. D ur ing tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ec ei ve d th e ev ide nc e unde r Fe d. R. E vid . 803( 3) , the he ar say

e xc ep tio n pe rm itt ing r ec ei pt o f out of c ourt st at em en ts f

or the pur pose of sho w ing the de cl ar an t’ s “ co nf use d” state of

m ind . I n it s op ini on, however, the district court recounted as fact the stories of a ctual confusion relay ed by A FG A ’ s e m

plo y ee s. B y

f ind ing the inc ide nts de sc ri be d to the e m plo y ee s by the out of c ourt de cl ar an ts h ad

a ct ua lly take n pl ac e, the c ourt us ed the state m en ts as e vid en ce of

the tr uthof the m atte rs a sse rt ed

—ac la ssi c he ar say

pur pose . F ed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (c). Wha t A FAand A FS E ove rl ook, how ev er , is that a lth oughthe e vid en ce of actual confusion occup ied a large portion of the district court opini on, it wa s larg el y sup er fl uous to the c ourt’ s ul tim at e fi ndi ng o f inf ri nge m en t. A ga in, it

is es se nti al to re m em

be r inf ri nge m en t tur

ns o n w he the r a lik el iho od o f co nf usi on ex is ts . Jellibeans, Inc. , 716 F . 2d at 83 9. T o de te rm ine w he the r it doe s, G eo rg ia co urts e xam ine m any

f ac tor s, inc lud ing “ the str en gthor dis tin ct ive ne ss o f the tr ad em ar k a t i ssu e; sim ilari ty

or ove ra ll im

pr es sio n c re at ed

by the de sig ns;11

sim ilari ty of pr oduc t; ide nti ty

of r et ai l ou tle ts and p ur ch as er s; i de nti ty of ad ve rti si ng m ed iaus ed ; d efen da nt ’s in te nt ; an d a ctua l co nf us io n.” A ckerm an Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Design Sec. Sys., Inc. , 201 G a. App. 805 , 806 , 412 S . E . 2d 5 88, 589 (G a. Ct . App. 199 1) ( ci tin g Am Brit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc. , 812 F . 2d 1 531, 153 8 ( 11th Cir. 1986 )). T he best evidence, of course, is proof of a ctual confusion , but such ev id en ce i s n ot ess en ti al to a co m m on law i nf

rin ge m en t cl ai m . Id

. To prove infringem ent, A FG A w as not required to sho w c onsu m ers w ere ac tua lly c onf use d, but r athe r that c onsum er

c onf usi on w as li ke ly

to re sul t f

ro m the m anne r in whic h A FS E use d th e m ar k inthe r el ev an t t er

ri tor y . E ve n if

the ev ide nc e of

a ct ua l c onf usi on w er e ex cl ude d, the re r em ai ns am ple e vid en ce to supp ort the district court’ s finding that confusion wa s likely . As the court expla ine d: [T ] he A N G E L F L IG H T w or d m ar k us ed by D ef en dants A FAand A FS E in the T er

ri tor y is ide nti ca l t o th at

use d by A FG Ain the T er ri tor y f or ove r tw en ty

y ears . A FS E , A FAand A FG Aa ll use the m arkANGEL FLIGHT in co nju nc ti on wit h i de nt ic al ser vi ces , i.e., publ ic benefit fly ing. Moreover, AF SE , A FA , and AFG A a lso target the sam e co nsum er s—p ilo ts, pa tie nts , hos pit al s and d onor s—i n conjunction with these identical services, and have identical adve rt isi ng m ethods —r ad io, te le vis ionand f undr ai se rs . Dist. Ct. Or der at 64. In addition, the district court foundappellants had int en tio na lly

e xpl oit ed

the goo dw ill a sso ci at ed

w ithA FG A ’ s m ar

k by ope nin g a12

ne wof fi ce in A tlanta

dur ing the c our se of

li tig at ionand h ad

r ea ch ed out to es ta bli she d A FG Adon or s to ins er t i tse lf int o A FG A ’ s r el at ion shi ps w iththo se do no rs . Id

. a t 69 . I n sh ort, A FG A , A FAand A FS E use d th e sam e m ar k inthe sam e te rr ito ry

dir ec te d to the sam e en tit ie s by the sam e m eans. T he r isk of co nf usi on w as se lf

-e vid en t; the re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by c onc lud ing co nsum er s w er e lik el y

to be c onf

use d by the c onc ur

re nt u se of

the A nge l F lig ht m ark in the sam e terr itory by both AFSE and AF GAand that AFS E ther efore inf ri nge d A FG A ’ s c om

m on l awtr ad em ar

k r igh ts. B. Laches and Acquiescence Whe n th e dis tr ic t c ourt ha s w ei ghe d th e pr ope r fa ct or s inde te rm ini ng w he the r a de fe ndant h as pr ove n th e el em en ts o f a la ch es de fe nse , w e re vie wthe di st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on forab us e o f di sc ret io n. See A mB rit, Inc. , 812 F. 2d at 1545 -4 6. T he sam e standard appl ie s to r ev ie wof

ade ci sio n r eg ar din g th e de fe nse of acq ui es cen ce. Coach House Rest., Inc. v. Coach & Six Rests., Inc. , 934 F . 2d 15 51 , 15 58 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). T o pr ove the a ff

irm at ive de fe nse of

la ch es und er

G eo rg ialaw , ade fe ndant m ust sho wit w oul d be ine qui ta

ble to al lowthe pla int if

f to e nf or ce his le ga l r igh ts. W hit en v . M

urray , 267 G a. App. 417 , 422 , 599 S . E . 2d 3 46, 352 ( G a. Ct . App. 2004 ). “ Whether laches should app ly depends on a consideration of the particular13

ci rc um stanc es , inc lud ing the le ngth of the de lay in the c la im an t’ s a sse rt ionof rights, the sufficiency

of the excuse for the delay , the loss of evidence on dispu ted m atters, [and] the oppo rtunity for the cla im ant to have acted sooner. . . .” Id . In the c ont ex t of

tr ad em ar k in fr ing em en t, ade fe ndant i nvok ing la ch es ty pic al ly m ust showthe pla int if

f ine xc usa

bly de lay ed in en fo rc ing it s tr ad em ar k r igh ts, the re by cau si ng th e d efen da nt un du e p reju di ce. Citiban k, N. A. v. Citibanc Group, Inc. , 72 4 F .2d15 40 , 15 46 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). T he de fe nse of

a cquie sc en ce r equir es pr oof of thr ee e le m en ts: ( 1) the plaintiff actively

repre sented it would no t assert a r ight o r claim ; (2) the delay be tw ee n th e ac tiv e re pr es en ta tio n and a sse rt ionof the r igh t or

c la im w as not ex cu sabl e; an d (3 ) th e d el ay cau se d t he de fen da nt un du e p reju di ce. Co ac h H ouse R es t. , 934 F.2d at 1558 . “ The diff erence betwee n acquiescence and laches is that laches denotes passiv e consent and acquiescence denotes active consent.” Id . Appellants argue strenuouslythe district court erre d when it concluded they ha d no t “ m et

the ir bur de n” of

pr ovi ng the a ff

irm at ive de fe nse s of

la ch es and ac qui es ce nc e. T he y

f oc us p ar tic ularl y on the c ourt’ s f

ind ing that A FG Adid

not unreasonablydelay

before br ingin g its lawsuit, offe ring m any rea sons why

they be lie ve the ir

pos iti on w as c or

re ct . T he y

do n ot, how ev er , pr ovi de any r ea son w hy14

thi s C ourt sh oul d f

ind , a s am atte r of

law , the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n by cred it in g AFGA’s ev id en ce ra th er t ha n t he ir o wn. Af ter hear ing th e evidence, the district court found AFSE ’ s use of the m ark ha d be enli m ite d w ith in the te rr ito ry unt il shor

tly a ft er A FAw as f

orm ed . T he court also foundthat before 2001 AFS E’ s onlyuse of the m ark w ithin the territory related to fly ing patient s and organs in and out of the area. A fter 2001, A FSE ope ne d br an chof

fi ce s inthe te rr ito ry

and b eg ansol ic iti ng d onatio ns and pr om oti ng i ts s er

vic es . Under the doctrine of pr ogressive encroachm ent, “ delay is to be m easured fr om the ti m e at

w hic h th e pla int if

f know s or

sho uld kno wshe ha s apr ova

ble claim for infringem ent.” Kason Indu s., Inc. v. Component Hardware Group, Inc. , 120 F. 3d 1 199, 120 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ; se e als o 6 J . Tho m as McC art hy, M cC arthy on T rade m ark s an d U nfa ir C om pe tit ion § 31.19 (4th ed. 1997) (“ The senior user ha s no obl igatio n to sue unt il the li ke lih ood of c onf usi on l oom s larg e. . . . ”) . T he d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n dAF SE ’s ch an g e o f t ac ki n 2 0 0 1 ju s t i fi edth e t i m i n g o f A FG A’s law sui t. T ha t f

ind ing w as sup porte d by

the e vid en ce and w as not an a buse of di sc ret io n. Furthe rm or e, e ve n if

A FAand A FS E ha d pr ove n th ei r af fi rm at ive de fe nse s, A FG Aw oul d st ill be e nti tle d to ape rm an en t i nj unc tio n be ca use the c ourt f

ound15

that the concurrent use of the A ngel Flight m ark by AF SE and AF GAhad caused an d w oul d c ont inu e to c au se c onf usi on am ong m em

be rs of the pub lic . A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d: L ac he s and a cquie se nc e ar e ina ppl ic ab le to the f

ac ts o f thi s c as e be cau se th e p ub li c is co nf us ed , andAFA andAFSE ad m itas m uc h. La ches or acquiesence do not preclude the Court’ s issuance of an inj unc tio n to pr ev en t f

urthe r ac ts o f tr ad em ar

k c onf usi on b y A FAand A FS E . E ve n inc as es w he re the se de fe nse s bar a sui t f or dam ag es due to inequ ity

to the infringer, the C ourt m ay still grant injunctive relief to avoi d “puttin g aj udi ci al stam p of appr ova l onc ondu ct

w hic h w ill confuse consum er. ” Id. at77 -7 8 (q uo ti ng 6 J . Tho m as McC art hy, M cC arthyon T

rade m ark s an d U nfa ir C om pe tit ion § 31 . 10 ( 4the d. 199 7) ). “ Whe n in ev ita ble c onf usi on o cc ur s in the m ar ke tpl ac e due to unr es tr ic te d du al use of atr ad em ar

k, the param ount

va lue of the public int erest dem ands som e adj ustm ent to the status quo,” even in cases in vo lv in g a cqui es en ce. Sun A m er ic a C

orp. v . Sun L ifeA ssu r. Co . of Ca nada , 77 F.3 d 1 32 5, 1 33 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) . Se e als o C oac h H ouseR es t. , 934 F . 2d at 15 64 (“ [I] f there is an inevitabil ity of confusion, [a] petition er’ s law suit m ay be revived fro m est op pe l” ). In this case, confusion wa s inevitable. Consequently , r egardless whether A FG A ’ s de lay

in br ing ing sui t w as e xc usa ble , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in rej ecting appellants’ a ffirm ative defenses as bars to inj unctive relief.As an e x ample, AF SE volunteers could use the mark while f lying pa tients from Florida 2 to G e or g ia . H ow e ve r, AF SE v olu nte e rs c ou ld n ot d isp lay

the mark on mate ri a ls u se d to re c ru it pilots or soli cit donations in the State of Geor g ia. 16 C. P erm ane nt I

nju nc tio n U nde r tr ad iti ona l e qui ta

ble pr inc ipl es , apla int if

f se ek ing ape rm an en t injunction m

ust dem onstrate (1) it has suffer ed an irre parable inj ury ; (2) re m edies available at law , such as m onetary dam ages, are inadequate to com pensate for that inj ur y ; ( 3) c onsi de ri ng the ba lanc e of hard shi ps b etw ee n th e pla int if f an d de fe ndant, ar em edy

in equity is w ar rante d; and ( 4) the pub lic int er es t w oul d no t be di ss erv edby a perm an en t i nju nc ti on . eB ay Inc. v. Me rcEx change, L. L. C. , 547 U . S. 388 , 391 , 126 S . Ct . 183 7, 183 9 ( 2006 ). A ft er he ar ing arg um en t and re ce ivi ng e vid en ce f

ro m a ll part ie s, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e fi ndi ngs w ithr es pe ct to each of these f

actors and issued an injunction p rohibiti ng AFAand its m em bers (including AF SE ) fr om

using the Angel Flight m ark in Ge orgia, A labam a, Mi ssi ssi ppi , T enne sse e, N orth C ar oli na , and S outh C ar oli naf or the pur pose of sol ic iti ng d onatio ns, a dve rt isi ng o r pr om oti ng the ir se rv ic es , or

r ec ru iti ng vol unt ee rs . T he inj unc tio n a llo w s A FAand i ts m em be rs to co nti nue usi ng the m ar k to ide nti fy

plane s f ly ing int o and o ut o f the se state s and t o c ont inu e the ir pr om oti ona l and r ec ru itm en t e ff orts i n othe r state s. 217

W e re vie wthe de ci sio n to gr an t an in j unc tio n and the sc ope of the in jun ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. F ed . E le ct ion Co m m ’n v . R ef orm P art y of t he United States , 479 F . 3d 1 302, 130 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) ( gr an t or de nia l of inj unc tio n) ; CB S B road

. , I nc . v . Ech oStar C

om m c’ns C

orp. , 450 F . 3d 5 05, 517 n.25 (11th Cir. 2006) (scope of inj unction ). A FAand A FS E c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n th at a pe rm an en t i nj unc tio n w oul d no t harm the pub lic int er es t. T he y arg ue the pub lic interest at stake in this case is the interest in accessing free m edical tr an spor ta tio n—an in te re st the y

c ont en d is c om

pr om ise d by

the te rm s of

the injunction. A FG A disagree s and poin ts to a long line of tradem ark ca ses in which this Court has exp lained the “ publ ic interest” r elevant to the issu ance of a pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on is th e p ub li c’s in te res t i n a vo id in g u nn eces sa ry co nf us io n. Se e, e . g. , D av ido

ff & CI E , S. A . v . P LDI nte rn. Co rp. , 263 F . 3d 1 297, 130 4 ( 11th Ci r. 200 1) ( “ [T ] he pub lic int er es t i s se rv ed by pr ev en tin g c onsum er

c onf usi on i n the m ar ke tpl ac e. ”) ; SunA m er ic a C orp. , 77 F. 3d at 133 4 (noting even in cases inv olv ing a cquie sc en ce , “ the pub lic int er es t i n pr ev en tin g c onf usi on aro und the m ar ke tpl ac e is p ar am ount

to any ine qui ty c au se d th e j uni or

use r” by iss uanc e of inj unc tio n) ; Co ac h Ho us e Res t., 934 F. 2d at 15 64 ( “ [P ] ubl ic int er es t i n pr ev en tin g co nf us io n a ro un d t he m ark etpl ace i s p aram ou nt . . . . ”).18

A lth oughA FAand A FS E c onc ed e av oid ing c onf usi on i s ale git im at e publ ic interest, they

insist it cannot be the onlypubli c interest considered by the court when deciding whether to issue an injunction. Appellants take th e positio n that be ca use no l iti gant c anw in a

tr ad em ar k in fr ing em en t l aw sui t w ith out pr ovi ng i t lik el y that the pub lic w ill be c onf use d by sim ilari tie s be tw ee n th e or igi na l and infringing m arks, the “ publ ic interest” in an inj unction m ust be m ore than a m ere int er es t i n avoi din g c onf

usi on. W er e that no t the c as e, an in j unc tio n w oul d is sue in ev er ytra de m arkact io n wh ere i nf rin ge m en t h as be en sh own . Appellants’ observation is not far off the m ark. A s this Cou rt has stated pr ev iou sly , in “ or din ar

y tr ad em ar k in fr ing em en t a ct ion s . . . c om ple te inj unc tio ns ag ai ns t t he in fri ng in g p art y are t he ord er o f th e d ay .” SunAme rica Co rp. , 77 F . 3d at 133 6. T he r ea son is s im ple : the pub lic de se rv es not to be le d a str ay

by the use of ine vit ab ly

c onf usi ng m ar ks— ev enin ca se s inw hic h m or e than on e en tity ha s a le ga l ri gh t t o u se th e m ark . Id. at13 36 -3 7. H av ing f ound c onf usi on w as ine vit ab le , the dis tr ic t c ourt w as e nti tle d to en j oinA FS E and A FAf

ro m use s of the m ar k th at w oul d c ont inu e to c au se pub lic co nf usi on. T he c ourt c ra ft ed

an in j unc tio n th at

pe rm itt ed

A FS E and A FAto use th e m arkin AFGA’ s t erri to ry in th e sa m e m an ne r AFSE h addo ne pri orto 20 01 . U nde r the te rm s of

the inj unc tio n, A FS E and A FAm ay use the m ar

k inc onne ct ion19

w ithf ly ing pa tie nts int o and o ut o f the r el ev an t t er ri tor y . T he y are e nj oin ed

onl y fr om sol ic iti ng f

unds and p ro m oti ng the ir se rv ic es w ith in A FG A ’ s te rr ito ry —the ac tio ns tha t pr om

pte d A FG A ’ s de ci sio n to br ing thi s law sui t. W e fi nd n o e rr or in th e d eci si on to is su e th e in jun ct io n o r in th e in

jun ct io n’s s co pe . D . U nit ed Sta tes T rade m ark R eg istrat ion No . 1, 491, 541 Inany a ct ioninv olv ing ar eg ist er ed m ar k, ac ourt m ay

or de r the c an ce llatio n of th e reg is tra ti on , in who le or i n p art , when su ch act io n i s warran te d. See 15 U. S. C. § 111 9. O ne groundon which a party m ay petition to cancel a registered service m ark is that the registration was obtained fraudulently . 15 U. S. C. § 064 (3). Fra

ud occurs when an applicant knowinglym akes false, m aterial rep res en ta ti on s o f fac t i n c on ne ct io n wi th an ap pl ic at io n fo r a reg is te redm ark . Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shad ow Network Inc. , 104 F. 3d 33 6, 340 (Fed. Cir. 1997 ). T he party

seeking to cancel a m ark bear s the burden of provin g the alleged frau d b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. Ci tib ank, 72 4 F .2dat 1 54 4. The district court cancelled AF A’ s registered A ngel Flight m ark af ter fi ndi ng A nge l F lig ht W es t ( the or igi na l owne r of the A nge l F lig ht m ar

k) com m itted two acts of f

raud when a

pply ing for registration. Spec ifically , the c ourt found Angel Flight We st’ s president, D ennis Torres, (1) intentionallyprovided an inc or re ct f ir st d at e of

use f or the r eg ist er ed

m ar k; and ( 2) pur

pose ly f ai le d toAn g e l F light We st’ s p ro bo no c ouns e l, B ill y Rob bin s, te sti fi e d b y

de po sit ion . H is 3 testimony , howeve r, wa s limi ted to confirmingthat he had f iled the re g istration application on behalf of Ang el Flight West. R obbins denied knowledg e of the history of Ang el Flight West’s use of the ma

rk or knowle dg e of a

ny other org anizations’ use of the Ang el Flight mark.

20 dis cl ose use of

the te rm “ A nge l F lig ht” by

oth er or ganiz at ion s ( suc h a s A FG Aand A FS E ) ev entho ugh he w as aw ar e oth er gr oups w er e usi ng the nam e an d ha d a right to do so. W e re view f or clear err or the district court’ s finding that fraud w as co m m it te d. Id

.

“ Am iss ta te m en t of

the da te of

f ir st u se in the appl ic at ionis not f at al to the securing of a valid registration as long as there has bee n valid us e of the m ark prior to the filing date.” Ca r Su bxSe rv . Sy s. , I nc . v . E xx on C orp. , 21 5 U.S.P.Q. 345, 351 ( P. T . O . T . T . A . B. 198 2) ; see also Pony E xp. C ourier Cor

p. of A me rica v. Pony E xp. D elivery Serv. , 872 F . 2d 3 17, 319 ( 9thCi r. 198 9) . A t tri al G ar y D av is, a board m em be r of A nge l F lig ht W es t and the onl y w itn es s to pr ovi de e xte nsi ve te sti m ony a t tri al r eg ar din g A nge l F lig ht W es t’ s a cquis iti on and m odi fi catio n of the r eg ist er ed

m ar k, te sti fi ed

A MF ST -L as V eg as be gan us ing an e ar ly ve rs ionof 3 the m ar k inor be fo re 198 3. A nge l F lig ht W es t be gan us ing the sam e earl y ve rs ion of the m ark soon thereafter . Although Angel Flight W est did no t m odify the m ark to i ts c ur re nt f orm unt il som et im e shor

tly be fo re it f ile d th e re gis tr at ionappl ic at ion in 1 986 (m ak ing af

ir st u se da te of

198 3 ate ch nic al im

poss ibi lity ), it

is cl ear fr om21

D av is’ s te sti m ony

and d oc um en ts a dm itt ed int o e vid en ce that A nge l F lig ht W es t be ga n u si ng th e m od ifi edm arkbe fo re i t ap pl ie d t o re gi st er t he m ark . T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound A nge l F lig ht W es t c om

m itt ed f ra ud b y int en tio na lly providi ng an incorrect fir st date of use on its registration application. H owever , be ca use the unc ontro ve rt ed

te sti m ony

e sta bli she d A nge l F lig ht W es t m ad e va lid use of the m ark prior to the date it filed its registration application, the im proper fi rs t us e da te c ont ai ne d inthe appl ic at ionc annot be aba sis f

or inv al idatin g th e reg is tra ti on . T he m or e dif

fi cu lt que sti on i s w he the r suf fi ci en t e vid en ce sup ports the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing that D ennis T or

re s purp ose ly

f ai le d to dis cl ose on the registration application other organizations’ use of the term “ Angel Flight” even t h o u g h h e w a s aw a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n s th r o u g h o u tth e c o u n t ry w e r e u s i n g th e n a me an d ha d ar igh t t o do so. P ur pose ly f ai lin g to dis cl ose oth er

use rs ’ r igh ts t o us e the sam e or sim ilar m ar

ks m ay qua lif y a s am at er ia l om iss ionj ust if y ing c an ce llatio n of a tr ad em ark . See L. D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc. , 192 F. 3d 13 49, 1352 (Fed. C ir. 1999 ) (suggesting proof of nonin fringing, consequenti al use by others m ay in va li da te ap pl ic an t’s cl ai m when co m

bi ne d wi th pro of

of i nt en t t o d ecei ve ). T he re fo re , if

the e vid en ce w as suf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing , the m arkwas p ro pe rly canc el le d.22

Whe n a ppl y ing to re gis te r the A nge l F lig ht m ar k, T or re s de cl ar ed : that he is Pr es ide nt o f ap pli cant c or por at ionand a

uth or iz ed to ex ec ute thi s D ec laratio n onbe ha lf of sa id C or por at ion ; he be lie ve s sa id co rp or at ionis the ow ne r of the m ar k so ught to be r eg ist er ed ; tha t t o t h e b e s to f

h i s kn o w l e d g e an db e l i e f n o o t h e r p e r s o n , f i rm, co rp or at ion , or

a sso ci at ionha s th e ri ght

to use sa id m ar

k in com m erce , e ither in the identical form thereof or in such near re se m blanc e the re to a s m ay

be li ke ly , w he n a

ppl ie d to the goo ds o f suc h othe r pe rs on, to ca

use c onf usi on, or c au se m ist ak e, or

to deceive; that all statem ents m ade herein on inform ation and belief are be lie ve d to be tr

ue ; and f urthe r that the se state m en ts w er e m ad e w ith the knowledge that willful false statem ents and the like so m ade ar e puni sha ble by f ine or im pr iso nm en t or

both . . . and tha t su chw ill fu l fa lse state m en ts m ay

j eo pard iz e the va lid ity

of the appl ic at ionor do cu m en t o r an y

reg is tra ti on res ul ti ng th eref ro m . T o c onc lud e T or

re s de fr au de d th e Pate nt and T ra de m ar k O ff ic e by sig nin g th is statem ent, the district court had to find Torr es wa s aware other organizations we re using the Angel Flight m ark (e ither in an identical form or a near re sem

blance) an d “ kn ew orbe li ev ed ” th os e o th er o rg an iz at io ns ha d arig ht to us e th e m ark . Be ca use T or re s hi m se lf

did not te sti fy a t tri al , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s r es t on th e te st im on y

of Ga ry Davi s. Davis’s tr ial testim ony

revea led Angel Flight W est wa s awa re other or ganiz at ion s w er e usi ng n am es suc h a s “ T he A nge l F lig ht” a t the ti m e the re gis tr at ionappl ic at ionw as f ile d, but did not dis cl ose that i nf

orm at ionto the Pate nt and T ra de m ar

k O ff ic e. I t w as pos sib le f

or the tr ia l c ourt t o in fe r the r ea son23

Torr es concealed this inform ation was because he knew or believed the other Ang el Fli gh t o rg an iz at io ns ha d a n e qu al rig ht to us e o f th e Ang el Fli gh t m ark . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r

ule d A nge l F lig ht W es t c om m itt ed f ra ud i n c onne ct ion w ithit s tr ad em ar

k a ppl ic at ionw he n D ennis T or re s r ep re se nte d th at , to “ the be st o f his kno w le dge and b el ie f no o the r pe rs on, f irm , c or por at ion , or

a sso ci at ionha [d ] the r igh t t o us e” the A nge l F lig ht m ar k. T ha t r uli ng w as not

c le ar ly e rr one ous; consequent ly , the district court did not err by invalidatin g United States Trad em arkReg is tra ti on No. 1 ,49 1,5 41 on th e b as is of t he all eg edfrau d. III. CONCLUSION W e A FF IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng i n it s e nti re ty . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d not e rr in ru lin g ( 1) A FS E inf

ri nge d A FG A ’ s c om

m on l awtr ad em ar

k r igh ts b y usi ng the m ar

k inam anne r that c re at ed asub stanti al r isk

of c onf usi on; and (2 ) A FG Aha d no t a cquie sc ed to A FS E ’ s in fr ing ing use and w as not e sto ppe d by la ch es f ro m e nf or ci ng i ts c om

m on l awr igh ts i n th e m ar k. S im ilarl y , the inj unc tio n en te re d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt, w hic h w as ta ilo re d to pr ote ct A FG A ’ s r igh ts and en sur e the pub lic w oul d no t be c onf use d, w as pr ope rl y

e nte re d. F ina lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr by c an ce lli ng Unit ed

S ta te s T ra de m ar

k N o. 1,4 91 ,54 1 o n t he gro un d t he reg is tra ti on ha d b een ob ta in edth ro ug h fr au d. AFFIRMED.