American Registry of Radiologic Technologists, The v. Gonzalez, Jr.

Background

The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) certifies and registers radiologic and medical imaging technologists. Its registered certification marks are used on certificates and credential cards, and the opinion states that state agencies, hospitals, healthcare employers, and insurers rely on ARRT accreditation.

Gonzalez had been certified with ARRT through September 30, 2004. In 2018, ARRT discovered that he had used another person’s credential card after replacing the identification number, name, and address with his own. ARRT sued him in Florida, and the parties settled in September 2019. In that agreement, Gonzalez admitted that he had falsified the card, agreed not to represent that he was certified or registered with ARRT, and agreed that he would owe $10,000 for each default. He also agreed to entry of a permanent injunction if he defaulted. ARRT dismissed the earlier lawsuit after the agreement.

Gonzalez later submitted falsified ARRT cards to a Florida medical center on February 6 and June 25, 2020. The employer believed he was ARRT-accredited because of the cards and stated that it would not have hired him as a nuclear medicine technician without those credentials.

Claims and arguments

ARRT alleged that Gonzalez breached the settlement agreement; infringed its trademarks under sections 32(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act; committed common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition; and violated Florida’s deceptive and unfair trade practices law. ARRT sought a permanent injunction and monetary damages, including $20,000 in liquidated damages under the agreement.

Gonzalez admitted using the falsified credentials but argued that the agreement was unenforceable because he signed it based on a mistake or misrepresentation. He also argued that the liquidated-damages provision was unconscionable, meaning unfairly one-sided or unreasonable. He contended that ARRT’s actual damages were much lower than $10,000 per violation.

Court’s analysis

The court granted summary judgment, which is judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Contract claim. The court held that Gonzalez had not provided evidence supporting his claim that the agreement resulted from a mistake or misrepresentation. His assertion that he understood he could seek recertification did not establish that ARRT had prevented him from doing so. The court also noted that the agreement contained an integration clause excluding prior written or oral representations from the agreement’s terms.

The court rejected the unconscionability argument. It held that the $10,000-per-default liquidated-damages provision was reasonable in light of the agreement, the contemplated harm, and the surrounding circumstances. The court accepted that the amount reflected not only measurable losses but also difficult-to-quantify harm to ARRT’s goodwill and attorney’s fees incurred in securing the agreement. Because Gonzalez defaulted twice, the court held that the agreement required him to pay $20,000 in liquidated damages.

Trademark and related claims. The court found no dispute that ARRT owned valid, protectable marks and that Gonzalez used them without authorization. It held that presenting copies of the marks to prospective employers violated the Lanham Act’s prohibition on unauthorized use of a registered mark likely to cause confusion. It also held that Gonzalez used the marks to falsely suggest an affiliation with or accreditation by ARRT, violating the Lanham Act’s prohibition on false or misleading representations likely to cause confusion.

The court concluded that the falsified credential cards created a likelihood of confusion because Gonzalez’s employer believed he was ARRT-accredited and would not have hired him without those credentials. It awarded ARRT $36,664 in trademark-related damages based on an expert report that the court found reasonable and well supported. The court also issued a permanent injunction, relying in part on Gonzalez’s agreement to that relief after a default.

Disposition

The court ordered that:

- ARRT’s motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction was granted. - Judgment was entered for ARRT. - ARRT was awarded $20,000 for breach of contract and $36,664 for trademark infringement. - ARRT could file a petition for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit. - Gonzalez was permanently enjoined from using, reproducing, copying, or imitating ARRT marks in ways likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception. - Gonzalez was ordered to deliver to ARRT materials in his possession, custody, or control that bore or used ARRT marks. - Gonzalez was ordered to file a sworn report explaining how he complied with the order within 30 days. - If Gonzalez violated the order, he would be liable for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to enforce it or remedy the violation.