[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11466

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22541-MGC

NEW WAVE INNOVATIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES MCCLIMOND,

an individual, 

MR. FOAMER, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

CAR WASH EXPERTS, INC.,

a Florida corporation, 

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 21, 2015)

Case: 14-11466 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before HULL, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

New Wave Innovations appeals the district court’s adoption of the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation of denial of New Wave’s motion for 

Preliminary Injunction. New Wave argues that the court erred when it accepted 

the magistrate judge’s finding that New Wave failed to show use of the “Mr. 

Foamer” mark in commerce in connection with the sale of any good or service and 

that New Wave could only establish de minimis or token use of the mark.

New Wave brought suit against the Appellees for trademark infringement, 

unfair competition/false designation of origin, unfair competition/trade dress 

infringement, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

and breach of confidential business relationship. It moved for a preliminary 

injunction, seeking to enjoin Appellees from operating any business using the 

name Mr. Foamer or using the name in conjunction with its business. New Wave 

asserts that it used the name Mr. Foamer before Appellees did and that Appellees’ 

use of the name has caused confusion. Specifically, New Wave used the name in a 

Christmas card that it sent in November 2011; the card depicted a foam generator 

as a cartoon character and said “Christmas Wishes from Mr. Foamer.” Appellees 

incorporated Mr. Foamer, Inc., in July 2012.

Case: 14-11466 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

We review the district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction for 

abuse of discretion. Forsyth Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 633 F.3d 1032, 

1039 (11th Cir. 2011). We review the court’s findings of fact for clear error and its 

legal conclusions de novo. Id. “This scope of review will lead to reversal only if 

the district court applies an incorrect legal standard, or applies improper 

procedures, or relies on clearly erroneous factfinding, or if it reaches a conclusion 

that is clearly unreasonable or incorrect.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 

403 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that “(1) it has a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be 

suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant 

outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing 

party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” 

Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (per curiam). 

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be 

granted unless the movant clearly established the ‘burden of persuasion’ for each 

prong of the analysis.” Am.’s Health Ins. Plans v. Hudgens, 742 F.3d 1319, 1329 

(11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176). 

A party who bring an action for trademark infringement must show “that its 

mark has priority and that the defendant’s mark is likely to cause consumer

Case: 14-11466 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

confusion.” Frehling Enters., Inc. v. Int’l Select Grp., Inc., 192 F.3d 1330, 1335 

(11th Cir. 1999). Trademark rights are gained in the common law via actual prior 

use in commerce. Tally-Ho, Inc. v. Coast Comm. Coll. Dist., 889 F.2d 1018, 1022 

(11th Cir. 1990). We have stated that, “[i]n general, uses that are de minimis may 

not establish trademark ownership rights.” Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techplosion, 

Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1196 (11th Cir. 2001). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion. New Wave used the mark a 

single time, in a Christmas card that purportedly contained a coupon; this coupon 

and its terms have not been entered into evidence. Thus we do not know how the 

coupon acted in placing Mr. Foamer in commerce. 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. As 

such, it was a de minimis use of the mark.1

 Thus, New Wave has not established 

trademark ownership rights and has not demonstrated substantial likelihood of 

success on the merits.

AFFIRMED.

 1 We reject New Wave’s reliance on the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure for 

its discussion of token use in this context. The discussion in the manual is about seasonal 

products, not a seasonal ad campaign. New Wave’s Christmas card was not akin to “test 

markets, infrequent sales of large of expensive items, or ongoing shipments of a new drug to 

clinical investigators.” TMEP § 902.02 (citing S. Rep. No. 515, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. 44-45 

(1988)). 

Case: 14-11466 Date Filed: 01/21/2015 Page: 4 of 4