Opinion ID: 199861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Permanent Injunction Against Ideal's Use of H-Series

Text: 78 The district court issued a permanent injunction against Ideal on August 30, 2000, barring Ideal from using the term Heritage, Heritage Series, H Series, or any name or mark confusingly similar to Heritage in connection with the sale, offer to sell, promotion, marketing, or advertising of any roofing product or service in the United States. 79 Ideal argues that the injunction is overbroad in barring use of H-Series by Ideal, because H-Series is not one of Tamko's registered trademarks. [I]njunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs, Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979), and courts must closely tailor injunctions to the harm that they address, ALPO Petfoods, 913 F.2d at 972. While generally the issuance of injunctive relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion, we review underlying factual determinations for clear error. I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir.1998). 80 On different facts, we might have more sympathy for a claim that an injunction against the use of a mark not registered to plaintiff is overbroad. Not here. This case is a perfect example of the need for the safe distance rule, which counsels that an infringer, once caught, must expect some fencing in.... Thus, a court can frame an injunction which will keep a proven infringer safely away from the perimeter of future infringement. 5 McCarthy on Trademarks, supra, § 30:4, at 30-12. Indeed, it was after Ideal faced contempt charges that it came up with H-Series, effectively dropping the eritage of Heritage Series. The district court, during the contempt proceedings, heard evidence that Ideal's use of H-Series would cause confusion: Tamko representatives and their customers used H as an abbreviated reference for Tamko Heritage products, and Tamko's Heritage 25 product is often referred to as H25. Cf. Forum Corp. of N. Am. v. Forum, Ltd., 903 F.2d 434, 441 (7th Cir.1990); Syrelec v. Pass & Seymour, Inc., 869 F.2d 838, 839 (5th Cir. 1989); Purolator, Inc. v. EFRA Distribs., Inc., 687 F.2d 554, 560 (1st Cir.1982). There are circumstances in which abbreviations of trademarks may be protectable as independent marks. See 1 McCarthy on Trademarks, supra, § 7:18, at 7-48. Whether or not that is the case here, the evidence that Ideal's use of H-Series would cause confusion is sufficient to justify the injunction requiring Ideal to steer clear of this similar abbreviation of the mark.