Opinion ID: 77915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Permanent Injunction Against Use of Health-Chem Mark

Text: Finally, in connection with the trademark infringement claim, Aronowitz challenges the breadth of the permanent injunction imposed by the district court as part of its Amended Final Judgment. We review the issuance of permanent injunctions for abuse of discretion. Simmons v. Conger, 86 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir.1996). Federal courts may grant permanent injunctions where infringement is found to have occurred in order to prevent further infringing use of a mark, and such injunctions should be designed to keep the former infringers a safe distance away from the protected mark. See Howard Johnson Co. v. Khimani, 892 F.2d 1512, 1517 (11th Cir.1990). Here, however, we have an unusual situation in which the mark at issue is part of a mark which Aronowitz has a license to use. Consequently, we find that the familiar boilerplate language or any other marks similar to Defendant's trademark Used by the district court makes the injunction inappropriately broad in this case. R4-455 at 2. Accordingly, we vacate the permanent injunction as issued.