Lawn Managers, Inc. v. Progressive Lawn Managers, Inc., No. 18-2658 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in this trademark infringement case over the word mark "Lawn Managers." In this case, the licensing agreement was the result of a divorce and provided that husband and wife would, in effect, operate parallel, almost identical companies using the same name and similar equipment and vehicles but in different zip codes.
The court agreed with the district court that Progressive has not met its high burden of proving that Lawn Managers abandoned its mark through naked licensing. Therefore, the district court properly found that wife could reasonably rely on husband's own quality control efforts and thus met the duty of control as licensor. The court held that the terms of the licensing agreement, combined with the couple's successful operation of the Lawn Managers business for over 17 years and the lack of any evidence of quality deviations at Progressive, were sufficient to support the district court's finding of reasonable reliance. Furthermore, the court held that the district court was within its discretion to conclude that the Lawn Managers mailer did not support Progressive's unclean hands defense. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in its damages award.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kobes, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Trademarks. The parties' agreement giving Progressive a time-limited use of the Lawn Managers' mark was not a naked license agreement, and Lawn Managers did not abandon its mark by granting the license in the unique circumstances presented; in these circumstances, Lawn Managers could reasonably rely on Progressive to meet the same standards of service that Lawn Managers provided its customers; the district court did not err in rejecting Progressive's unclean hands defense, as Lawn Managers was permitted under the parties' licensing agreement and other related agreements to send a "We Want You Back" mailer to former customers awarded to Progressive under the licensing agreement; the district court did not clearly err in its damages award. Judge Kobes, dissenting.
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.