Opinion ID: 63554
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: UrgiCare

Text: The mark “UrgiCare” is federally registered and, thereby, enjoys a presumption of validity. Id. at 10. In contrast to the “Urgent Care” mark, Appellants do not argue that “UrgiCare” is not protectable. Thus, we assume it is a valid mark. However, Appellees maintain the burden of establishing likelihood of confusion. See Union Nat’l Bank of Tex., 909 F.2d at 844. The district court’s analysis in finding likelihood of confusion centered exclusively on Appellees’ “Urgent Care” mark, not the “UrgiCare” mark. Appellees argue that, because “UrgiCare” sounds like the phrase “urgent care,” Appellants’ use of the phrase “urgent care” is infringing and diluting its “UrgiCare” mark. This argument lacks merit. Because we find that “Urgent Care” is a generic term, Appellees cannot prevent use of the term by registering a similar-sounding, but differently spelled mark. See Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co., 494 F.2d at 11 (noting 6 No. 08-60155 that “others should be equally entitled to use such nondistinctive words”). We find that South Mississippi Urgent Care is sufficiently distinct from UrgiCare such that Appellees’ trademark rights are not infringed upon. Therefore, the preliminary injunction also fails with respect to the “UrgiCare” mark.