The Honor able Dan n y C
. R eeves, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0554n.06 Filed: August 8, 2007 No. 06-2308 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I GN I TI ON

ATH L ETI C P ER FOR MANC E G RO UP, L L C, Pla int if

f- Ap pe lla nt,
v.
HA NT Z SOC CER

U. S.A ., L L C, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EAS TER

N DI S TR I CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : SI L ER and COOK, Circuit Judges; REEVES, District J udg e. * P er C uriam . I g nition Athletic Performanc e Gr oup (“I g nition”) appe als the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction ag ainst Hantz Soccer U.S.A. (“H antz”). I g nition claims that the district court abuse d its discretion in de ny ing a preliminary injunction a g ainst Hantz be cause of an alleg ed tra demar

k violation. Bec ause I g nition’s arg ument lacks mer it, we AF F IRM
.

I. BACKG ROUND I g nition is a Cincinnati based sp o rt s t ra i ning or g anization formed in May 2004. The compa n y works with par

ticipants of all ag es and a biliti es in a va

riety of sports. I ts primary
c us tom e rs are hig h- sc ho ol athl e te s, and it s mo st p op ula r s po rt is s oc c e r. I t ho sts so c c e r c a mps in Ohio and adve rtises at athletic e vents. Most of I g nition’s customers c ome from the Cincinnati areaNo. 06-2308

Ignition Athletic Performance Group v. Hantz Socc er

- 2 - and most of its advertising is done there . Howeve r, it has some exposure and customers fr om the rest o f Oh i o an d o t h er state s. I g nition uses logos bea ring its name and a

flame to re prese nt the company . I t a lso sponsors a prof essional socc er te am in Cincinnati, the Cincinnati Kings, that ha s the I g nit ion

log o o n th e fr on t of

its je rs e y s. I n April 2006, the Major I ndoor S o cc er L eague (“ MI SL ”) a nnounced the name of

a new expansion team in Detroit, the “De troit I g nition” (“De troit I ng ition”). The tea m is owned a

nd op e rate d b y

Ha ntz. Th e log o of the De tr oit I g nit ion c on sis ts of an ig nit ion sp ark plu g , a so c c e r b a ll, and the ter

m “ Detroit I g nition.” The team adver tises in the metro-D etroit are a, but it has exposure in the cities in which it c ompetes. Hantz intends to ope rate a socc er c amp for youths in the metroDe tr oit area, tau ght by

the pr of e ssi on a l te a m’ s p lay e rs and c oa c he s. Th e De tr oit

I g nit ion ha s a p art n e r s h i p w i t h H i g h V e l o c i t y S p o rt s ( “ H V S ” ) , ana t h l e t i c f a c i l i t y i nC an t o n , M I. I n Aug ust 2008, I g nition broug ht a suit a g ainst Hantz f or trade mark/ s er v i ce mark infring ement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, for false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) , and
se e kin g a d e c l ar a t o r

y j u d g e m e n t t h a t an y p r o m o t i o n o r s a l e s i n v o l v i n g t h e D e t r o i t I g n i t i o nwo uld infring e on the I g nition mar k and logo. I g nition also moved for entry of a temporar y re s t ra i ning order and a pr eliminary

injunction. The district court denie d the re quest f o r the tempora

ry restra ining order in Aug ust 2006 and the re quest for the preliminary injunction in S eptember

2006. II. AN AL YSI S Th e sta nd ard fo r r e vie wi nga

dis tr ic t court ’s de nia l of a moti on fo r pr e lim ina ry inj un c tio n is abuse of discretion. Loril lard Tobacc o Co. v . Amouri’s Grand Foods, Inc

. , 4 53 F .3 d 3 77 , 3 79 (6 th Cir . 2 00 6) . In c on sid e ri ngwh e the r t o g ra nt a pr e lim ina

ry inj un c tio n, the dis tr ic t cou rt mus t take int oNo. 06-2308

Ignition Athletic Performance Group v. Hantz Socc er

- 3 - a c c ount “ (1 ) t

he lik e lih oo d tha t the mov ant wil l suc c e e d on the me ri ts, (2 ) wh e the r the mov ant w ill
su ff e r i rr e pa ra ble ha rm wi tho ut the inj un c tio n, (3 ) the pr ob a bil ity that g ra nti ngthe inj un c tio n w ill
cause substantial harm to others a nd (4) whether the public interest will be adva nced by issuing the injunction.” Id. at 380. A. Likelih ood that the Movant Will Su cce ed on the Mer its Th e te st f or wh e the r t her e is l ia

bil ity fo r t ra de mark inf ri ng e me nt i s if

“ the de fe nd ant’ s u se of the disputed mar

k is likely to c ause confusion among consumers r eg ardingthe orig in of the g oods offe red by the par

ties.” Da dd

y ’s J un k y Mu sic Sto re

s, In c . v. Bi

g Dad dy ’s Fa mi ly

Mu sic Ctr

. , 109 F.3d 275, 280 ( 6th Cir. 1997). Eight f actor s must be examined to determine whether the de fenda nt’s mark will likely

lead to conf

usion: (1) streng th of the senior mark; (2) relatedness of the g oods or service s; (3) sim ilarity of t he mark; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marke ting c hannel use d; (6) likely deg ree of purc haser

car e; (7) the in t ent of defenda nt in selecting the mark; a nd (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines. Id

. 1. Strength of the Senior Mark I n assessing the s treng th of a mark, the tra demar k is placed into one of

four c ateg ories, fr om
weakest to strong est: g ener ic, desc riptive, sug g estive, and f ancif ul or arbitra

ry . Id. The district cour

t
corr ectly said that the I g nition logo is arbitra ry , the strong est categ ory

of protec tion, because the term “I g nition” has nothing to do with athletic pe rfor mance . See I

d. Howeve r, once the categ ory is determined, we must analy ze the m ark’ s “distinctiveness and deg ree of re cog nition in t he mar ketplace .” Homeowne r’s Group Inc . v. HomeM k tg
. S p ecialists, Inc.,No. 06-2308

Ignition Athletic Performance Group v. Hantz Socc er

- 4 - 93 1 F .2 d 1 10 0, 11 07 (6 th C ir . 1 99 1) . T ho ug h I g nit ion ha s some e xpos ur e ou tsi de of Cin c inn a ti, it is l imi te d, a nd

it d id n ot e sta

bli shany c on sid e ra

ble str e ng th i n th e De tr oit mark e t. 2. Relate dness of

the G oods or Service s I g nit ion c la ims that its g oo ds and se rv ic e s are hig hly re la te d to Ha ntz in three ar e a s: profe ssional socce r teams, training fac iliti es, and socce r camps. Thoug h the Detroit I g nition and the Cin c inn a ti K ing s b oth

have th e term “ I g nit ion ” on the ir je rs e y s, the te a ms a

re no t su bs tanti a lly related bec ause the y

play in differ ent leagues i n d iffer ent cities, and one play s outdoor socce r and the oth e r ind oo r. Con fu sio n be tw e e n HV S and I g nit ion is no t lik e ly , e ve n tho ug h the y are b oth athletic fa cilities. The service s at HVS are substantially differ ent than those at I g nition, and HVS is only associate d with the Detroit I g nition, whe rea s the I g nition fa cility car ries the name I g nition. Fur thermore , the fa cilities are ove r 200 miles apar t, so they are not likely

to attrac t the same c lientele. Finally , the respective soccer camps that I g nition and Detroit I g nition run are hundre ds of miles apar t
and are larg e ly

lim ite d to the ir

re sp e c tiv e re g ion s. 3. Sim ila r it y o f the M ar ks The district cour

t corre ctly

conclude d that the marks of I g nition and Detroi t I gn i t i on are simil ar, a s they

are identically pronounce d and prominently feature the term “I g nition.” T his factor is in favor of I g nition. Se e Da dd y ’s J un k yMu sic , 109 F.3d at 283. 4. Evid ence of Act ual Conf usion Thoug h there has not bee n any actua l confusion betwe en the two e ntities , “t h e absence of actua l evidence is inconsequential,” PA CAA R I nc . v . Te le sc an Te c hs ., L.L. C. , 3 19 F .3 d 2 43 , 2 52 , s o t h i s f a c t o r i s n o ti nf

a v o r o f e i t h e r p art y.No. 06-2308

Ignition Athletic Performance Group v. Hantz Socc er

- 5 - 5. Market ing Chan nels Used The two c ompanies m ar k et to simi lar a udience s, athletic y ouths, and they use similar

a dv e rt isi ngme diums, su c h a s n e ws pa pe r a ds , w e bs ite s, prom ot io ns , de a ls w ithloc a l sp or ts
or g anizatio ns , a

nd to a le sse r exte nt, te le vis ion and ra dio a dv e rt ise me nts
. Ho we ve r, the y a dv e rt ise i n differ ent re g ions. The fa ct that the two compa nies are targ eting simil ar a udience s with simi lar mediums in differe nt cities is not enough to show that the marke ting c hannels a re not the same. See Da dd y ’s J un k yMu sic , 109 F.3d at 285. 6. Lik ely Degr ee of P urchaser C are The pa rties conc ede that this i s not a signif icant fa ctor. 7. Intent of the Defendan t in Selecting the Mar k The pa rties conc ede that this i s not a signif icant fa ctor. 8. Like liho od o f Expa nsio n of t he P r oduc t L ine “A strong possibili ty that either party will expand his business to compete with the other or be mar keted to the same consumer s will we igh in f avor of finding that the pre sent use is infring ing.” Id. at 287. Thoug h I g nition claims it has poss ible plans to expand and fr anchise , it does not have a ny definite plans. The ref

ore, this fa ctor is not in favor of either pa rty
. See I d. B. I r r e par abl e Har m to th e M ov ant I rr e pa ra ble ha rm no rm all y

fo llo ws wh e n th e re is a lik e lih oo d o f c on fu sio n o r r isk to reputation. Lor illar

d , 453 F.3d at 381-82. Howe ver, the re is no risk of c onfusion betwee n I g nition and De troit I g nition for the rea sons stated above. Thoug h I g nition succ eede d on some of the above fa c tor s, su c h a s sim ila

ri ty of the mark s, the re st o f t he fa c tor s o ve rw he lmi ng ly su pp or t th e De tr oitNo. 06-2308

Ignition Athletic Performance Group v. Hantz Socc er

- 6 - I g nit ion . T he re fo re I g nit ion do e s n ot s uc c e e d o n th e me ri ts an d ir re pa ra ble ha rm do e s n ot n e c e ssa

ri ly follow. C. Sub stantial Harm to Others The district cour

t was cor rec t to conclude that ther e would be har m t o the Detr oit I g nition if it w a s forc e d to c ha

ng e the name of

the te a m be c a

us e a t th e tim e of

the de c isi on

the De tr oit I g nition had been de veloping its brand and adver tising in a nticipation of its inaugural season. The district court wa s also corr ect to concl u d e t h at t h i s fac tor weighs ag ainst the issuance of an injunction. See id. at 380. D. P ublic Int e r e st There is a public interest in “pr eventingconfusion and de ce p t i on in the marke tplace a nd protec ting the tr adema

rk holder’ s proper

ty interest in the mar

k.” Id. a t 38 3. Ho we ve r, be c a us e I g nition and Detroit I g nition are in diffe rent c ities and their g oods are substantially differ ent, there is no likelihood of confusion betwee n I g nition and Detroit I g nition. AF F IRMED.