Opinion ID: 63554
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Urgent Care

Text: The “Urgent Care” mark is not federally registered and Appellants–the alleged infringers–argue that the mark is generic. In such a situation, Appellees had the burden to establish that the mark is not generic. See, e.g., Filipino Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Asian Journal Publ’ns, Inc., 198 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 1999); see also 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition 12-30 (2003) (collecting cases). We find that Appellees failed to meet this burden and the district court’s implicit finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. Appellants argue that “Urgent Care” is a generic term for the provision of non-emergency medical services and point to its widespread use in the healthcare industry.4 Appellants note that: (1) according to state registrations, more than twenty corporations in Mississippi and neighboring states use the 4 According to the American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine, urgent care medicine “is defined as provision of immediate medical service (no appointment necessary) offering outpatient care for the treatment of acute and chronic illness and injury.” American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine, http://www.aaucm.org. 5 No. 08-60155 term “Urgent Care” in their name; (2) at least ten medical providers in Mississippi registered with the USTPO have the term “Urgent Care” in their name; (3) the American Medical Association adopted the code “UCM” (“Urgent Care Medicine”) for physicians who wish to designate themselves as urgent care specialists; and (4) several medical journals include the term “Urgent Care” in their title. We find that the term “Urgent Care” has not “become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce” and, thereby, is a generic term that is not entitled to trademark protection. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 769 (1992) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f)). In other words, the term “Urgent Care” is used so extensively that “others should be equally entitled to use such nondistinctive words.” Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 494 F.2d at 11. Therefore, Appellees’ mark is not protectable and the district court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief was in error. Accordingly, we need not address the district court’s findings of likelihood of confusion and irreparable harm.