Amplify Car Wash Advisors LLC v. Car Wash Advisory LLC

Background

Amplify Car Wash Advisors LLC sought permanent injunctive relief based on its trademark-infringement and cybersquatting claims against Car Wash Advisory LLC and Harry Caruso. On summary judgment, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for infringing Amplify’s “Amplify” and “Amplify Car Wash Advisors” trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and for cybersquatting involving the “amplifycarwash.com” domain under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). At trial, the jury awarded Amplify $1 in nominal damages on the trademark claim and $100,000 in statutory damages on the cybersquatting claim. The jury also found that the defendants willfully infringed Amplify’s marks.

Permanent-injunction standard

The court applied the four-factor test for a permanent injunction: whether the plaintiff suffered irreparable injury; whether money damages and other legal remedies are inadequate; whether the balance of hardships supports equitable relief; and whether an injunction would harm the public interest.

The court found irreparable injury because the defendants’ infringement created a likelihood of consumer confusion and had actually confused at least one Amplify customer. Because the court had already found liability, Amplify was entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm, and the defendants did not rebut it. The court also found that money damages were inadequate because losing control over a trademark’s reputation cannot be precisely calculated or compensated. Although the defendants deactivated the domain in 2022, they continued to own it, and their past willful violations suggested that they might resume infringing activity without an injunction.

The balance of hardships and public interest factors also favored an injunction. Amplify would face irreparable harm without injunctive relief, while the defendants conceded that transferring the domain would cause minimal or no hardship. The public has an interest in avoiding confusion, deception, and mistake.

Ruling

The court concluded that permanent injunctive relief was appropriate. However, it found Amplify’s proposed injunction overbroad because some provisions were not narrowly tailored to the specific legal violations in the case and could impose unnecessary burdens on lawful activity. The court therefore adopted the form of injunctive relief proposed by the defendants. The court granted Amplify’s request for permanent injunctive relief as set forth in a separate order and directed the Clerk to close the request identified as ECF No. 135.