PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPR ACTIC ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, Respondent-Appellant
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-701 / 06-0250
Filed November 16, 2006
PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC,
Petitioner-Appellee,
vs.
PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC ALUMNI ASSOCIATION,
Respondent-Appellant
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John A. Nahra,
Judge.
A college alumni association appeals the district court’s ruling prohibiting
the association from using an abbreviated name associated with the college.
AFFIRMED.
Robert M. Hogg and Patrick M. Roby of Elderkin & Pirnie, P.L.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellant.
Robert D. Lambert and R. Richard Bittner of Bittner, Lambert & Werner,
Davenport, and Jeffrey S. Bittner of Jeff Bittner Law, P.C., Davenport, for
appellee.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Palmer College of Chiropractic sought and obtained a permanent
injunction prohibiting an alumni organization known as Palmer College of
Chiropractic International Alumni Association from using the Palmer name, crest
and logo. The court’s ruling did not expressly enjoin the alumni association’s use
of its abbreviated name, “PCCIAA.”
When Palmer College learned that the alumni association intended to
continue using the abbreviation, it moved for an enlargement of the ruling to
prohibit this practice. The district court granted the motion, stating:
The evidence at trial clearly established that respondent’s name,
Palmer College of Chiropractic International Alumni Association,
and P.C.C.I.A.A. are used interchangeably. Respondent’s counsel
further admits when using the acronym that the “P” stands for
Palmer College . . . . [T]his Court finds the acronym P.C.C.I.A.A.
clearly stands for Palmer College of Chiropractic International
Alumni Association. Continued use of the acronym generates the
same confusion by use of the name Palmer by respondent.
The alumni association appeals, contending (1) “the issue of whether the Alumni
Association could be enjoined from using the name ‘PCCIAA’ was beyond the
court’s authority and jurisdiction because Palmer College had never raised it in
any earlier pleading, motion, argument or testimony at trial” and (2) Palmer
College did not prove the elements of a common law trademark infringement
claim.
On the first question, the record reflects that Palmer College raised the
alumni association’s use of the acronym well before trial and specifically
requested an order “restraining PCCIAA from referring to itself as the ‘OFFICIAL
PCC International Alumni Association’ or in any way association (sic) itself with
3
Palmer as an alumni organization recognized by Palmer . . . ” Additionally, the
parties used the acronym to refer to the alumni association in their pleadings,
other filings, and during trial. Therefore, Palmer College was authorized to seek
enlargement of the injunction via an Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) motion
and the district court was authorized to issue an enlarged injunction prohibiting
the use of the “PCCIAA” acronym. See In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d
260, 266 (Iowa 2005) (stating rule 1.904(2) may be used “to obtain a ruling on an
issue that the court may have overlooked in making its judgment or decree”);
Cripps v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 613 N.W.2d 210, 212 (Iowa 2000) (“In its normal
application to nonjury bench trials in which the court determines both facts and
the law, motions under rule [1.904(2)] may be employed to seek enlargement or
change of both the factual and the legal determinations of the court.”).
On the second question, whether Palmer College proved a common-law
trademark infringement claim, the institution had to establish that (1) it possessed
a proprietary right in the name and (2) there was an infringement of that right.
Commercial Sav. Bank v. Hawkeye Fed. Sav. Bank, 592 N.W.2d 321, 326 (Iowa
1999).
The district court concluded in its original ruling that Palmer College
proved these elements.
After making detailed fact findings, the court stated
Palmer College had a “sufficiently distinctive” name deserving of “protection
against use or infringement by another.” The court also stated that the alumni
association’s use of the Palmer name and crest indicated “an affiliation with
Palmer College” that was “confusing to the general public and general
consumer.” On our de novo review of the record, we find extensive support for
4
the court’s fact findings. No useful purpose would be served by recounting that
support. Suffice it to say that the district court acted equitably in issuing an
expanded writ of injunction prohibiting the alumni association’s use of the
acronym “PCCIAA.”
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.