Passport Health, LLC v. Avance Health System, Inc.

Filing 80

ORDER denying as moot 35 Motion to Amend; granting 39 Motion to Seal; denying 52 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part 58 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 65 Motion to Seal. Signed by Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 12/18/2018. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-CV-187-BO

PASSPORT HEALTH, LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.
AVANCE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and
defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Also before the Court are plaintiffs motion to

amend/correct complaint and defendant's motions to seal. The appropriate responses and replies
have been filed, and a hearing on the pending matters was held before the undersigned on October
18, 2018, at Raleigh, North Carolina. In this posture, the motions are ripe for ruling and, for the
reasons that follow, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff instituted this action by filing a complaint on April 19, 2017, alleging claims
against defendant for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, trademark infringement
under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (passing off), unfair and deceptive trade practices under North Carolina
General Statute § 75-1.1, breach of contract, and common law unfair competition. Plaintiffs
claims are alleged to arise from defendant's unauthorized use of plaintiffs federally registered
PASSPORT HEALTH trademarks in connection with providing, promoting, and selling travel
health and medical services, including but not limited to immunizations and wellness services.
Plaintiffs registration No. 2,058, 410 was issued to registration on April 29, 1997, was declared
incontestable on November 20, 2002, and was renewed on January 25, 2007; No. 3,622,317 was

issued to registration on May 19, 2009; No. 3,642,535 was issued to registration June 23, 2009.
[DE 1] Cmp. if 12.
Plaintiff, Passport, is a company which, through its franchisees, provides travel-related
medical services under its PASSPORT HEALTH marks. 1 Cmp. if 1. There are over 250 Passport
Health locations in forty states, as well as locations in Canada and Mexico, all of which use the
PASSPORT HEALTH marks extensively. Id.
Carolina and specifically in this district. Id.

if 13. Passport has licensed franchisees in North

if 4. Avance Care, P.A. provides family and primary

medical care services to patients at ten locations in the Triangle area of North Carolina. Avance
Care provides a wide-range of health services, including immunizations and travel-related
services. Defendant, Avance Health System (Avance), provides back-office support to Avance
Care, including accounting, records management, and marketing and advertising support.
In 2008, Avance contracted with a local internet marketing company to provide internetbased advertising and search engine optimization. As a part of this service, the marketing
company, Atlantic Business Technologies (ABT), purchased AdWords from Google and Bing.
AdWords are search keywords that may be purchased from internet search engines such as Google
and Bing. When an internet user searches using an AdWord, a sponsored or paid advertisement
will appear in the search results in portion of the webpage that is set apart from the unpaid or
natural search results. See generally Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W Coast Entm't Corp., 174
F.3d 1036, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999); CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., No. CIV.A. 10-3542,
2012 WL 5269213, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2012). Included in the group of AdWords purchased
by ABT was the AdWord "Passport Health" on the internet search engine Google.

1

Unless otherwise noted, the factual background is derived from defendant's statement of
undisputed facts and plaintiffs response to the same. [DE 59 & 66]. The material facts generally
do not appear to be in dispute, although the parties do not agree as to which facts are material.
2

In early 2013, Avance received a cease and desist letter from Passport regarding its use of

the Passport Health AdWord on Google. Avance instructed ABT to stop purchasing Passport
Health as an AdWord. Passport then voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit that it had initiated against
Avance, but not served, after ABT stopped purchasing the Passport Health AdWord. Avance later
terminated its relationship with ABT and hired two subsequent marketing firms, most recently
TheeDesign in November 2014.
Plaintiff filed this suit in April 2017 for use of the Passport Health AdWord on Bing. Bing
data is archived for three years, and data that was retrieved for 2014 shows that Avance continued
to purchase the Passport Health AdWord on Bing. The Bing results page for the search "passport
health raleigh nc" includes Passport's website as the first natural search result appearing in the
center of the webpage. Avance's advertisement, which reads: "Passport Health Clinic - Serving
the Triangle Metro Area in NC www.AvanceCare.com ... "is on the right side of the screen_ and
is labeled as an "Ad". A copy of the advertisement about which Passport complains is included
below: 2

2

In reply to its motion for summary judgment, Passport also provided a copy of an Avance Care
advertisement which appeared as a result of a Yahoo search, the data for which was apparently
· pulled from Bing. [DE 75-4]. However, because that exhibit does not provide a snapshot of the
context in which a consumer would see the Avance Care advertisement, the Court relies on image
below.

3

II

Jort health raleigh nc

;le North (arolina Travel Oinic I Passport Health

Sir,ni-1

A

1:::t'l1

-

Related searches

Wfl'J.passportt'>Nitl'l..rsa.CMl'loca!.a'ls'nC>\<ia1;1e•

~

~1JTm~IH~allhJT~e.NCPU~HiWlhilthela-p!st

paapolt lleatU'I

td.t1;JYZ.l l'l'Uf1:i'!e1ru\"i;a.~tlhtta·1Ctc:iD~~ U'.e Un.~:ISt.:!:5

DW!tc!Irie1ai.t~nc

rh.3m/RTP, NC Location

From Our Clients

pnspmt ne.itJi g"el!nsboro nc

N:IYT He-alttt Oi.;m;:irrtRT? iJ C.:ated

Fr:m 0... Cbel'O. Panpr. Mur:i Clien:

pas.sporttwalthr.:nal:a'ol'na

/.,!;e~!hDTTn.\.'.-s.1~...

~~Tra.o.elf.o;Jen~10"1:"'efl(elh~.

ry, NC Location
ed:lll Ccq}"! .¥!~
&!el

H!ghwocds

dJts:moei md:!r.e c:lhi::

Cft't-1.l;ilr...o;>OC.s ScUe...a·d near hi LIO,

r.csu ~le:"'~·

a.-.a W*lenes :nftr tl'!e

IRYe'bealttr.lnsi.rrreecarv•

Pan;or: H~ Rale"¢ - Hl~/o'C>Cd$ .••

••

,,.._.r,r.:x.in;zll:lQl'lS~lirighnc

!et Our Tegm

Raleigh, NC dini: Details

!$cu Pas~ t-'e!l'J'I ffl.1.'Vc lfal.-e!
C3'~G.nd~tll'lcyGlr.tie';I ••

Sieu:ce:d l'nJI R~;ti 11\odc.3! Cetter,

Passport Health Cini: -

FOJssi:o."!Hl'flllhR.a!t~~...a:.

Serving The Triangle Metro

reSl.bantr ft'clmpu!~~11.ccm

Area En NC.
AD

:;sutts for passport health raleigh nc

;

)

-..A~ceCue.com

Sem'19 Th-e T~ ,,."e:rclke::i~ rr;.
&?me Del:;' 6 \'Yecltn:!. ,D,J ;r..Je!o
Tm'e!Va::'i'..1:.cn.,;.,y;::n;sCX~

,@.@.8®

.!

.

Find Health Res1Jlts Here

Searcn for Health Info.

.I . .
-_/o ·..;
.!

All • --.bea:th247.ccm.'Se.irch
r.....,~ v ... .,.w.,.11f'!O::- ..... ~~,_

During the three-year period leading up to this lawsuit, Avance's Bing Passport Health
AdWord resulted in forty-one clicks, seven of which occurred in the month this suit was filed. It
is undisputed that there is no evidence that a consumer was actually confused by the Avance's
Bing advertisement.
DISCUSSION
Passport has moved for partial summary judgment in its favor, arguing that it is entitled to
judgment in its favor on counts I, II, and III of the complaint, which allege that Avance infringed
Passport's PASSPORT HEALTH trademarks and engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Passport also seeks to dismiss Avance's defenses of unclean hands, waiver, laches, and estoppel.
Avance has moved for summary judgment in its favor on all claims, arguing that Passport's
Lanham Act claims and claims of trademark infringement under different theories fail, and that
Passport's breach of contract claim further fails for lack of consideration. Alternatively, Avance
requests dismissal of Passport's breach of contract claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

4

A.

Legal Standards
A motion for summary judgment may not be granted unless there are no genuine issues of

material fact for trial and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
I

56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 4 77 U.S. 317, 323 ( 1986). If that burden has been met,
the non-moving party must then come forward and establish the specific material facts in dispute
to survive summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
588 (1986). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial, a trial court
views the evidence and the inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). However, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" in

support of the nonmoving party's position is not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary
judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). "A dispute is genuine if a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.... and [a] fact is material if it
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Libertarian Party of Virginia v.
Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Speculative

or conclusory allegations will not suffice. Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645,
649 (4th Cir. 2002).
Thus, when considering whether summary judgment is appropriate, ''the pertinent inquiry
is whether there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resol\;'ed only by a finder of
fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Reyazuddin v. Montgomery
Cty., Md, 789 F.3d 407, 413 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation and citation omitted). When

deciding cross-motions for summary judgment, a court considers each motion separately and

5

resolves all factual disputes and competing inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing
party. Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003).
The Court begins its consideration of the summary judgment motions with Passport's
Lanham Act trademark infringement claims. The Lanham Act protects consumers from confusion
due to the misleading use of trademarks by competitors. Radiance Found., Inc. v. NA.A. C.P., 786
F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2015). To prevail on a claim for trademark infringement, a plaintiff must
prove first that its marks are protectable and second that the defendant's use of the marks is likely
to cause confusion among consumers. ·swatch AG v. Beehive Wholesale, LLC, 739 F.3d 150, 158
(4th Cir. 2014). "Likelihood of confusion exists if 'the defendant's actual practice is likely to
produce confusion in the minds of consumers about the origin of the goods or services in
question."' CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. First Care, P.C., 434 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 2006)
(citation omitted). To determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion, courts consider the
following non-exhaustive list of factors, with the understanding that each factor is not necessarily
applicable in every case:
a) the strength or distinctiveness of the mark;
b) the similarity of the two marks;
c) the similarity of the goods/services the marks identify;
d) the similarity of the facilities the two parties use in their businesses;
e) the similarity of the advertising used by the two parties;
t) the defendant's intent;
g) actual confusion.
Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir. 1984). While not required, evidence
of actual confusion is "often paramount" in analyzing whether there is a likelihood of confusion.
CareFirst, 434 F.3d at 268; see also Shell Oil Co. v. Commercial Petroleum, Inc., 928 F.2d 104,
108 (4th Cir. 1991). Whether there is a likelihood of confusion is an inherently factual issue.
Swatch, 739 F.3d at 155.

6

B.

Analysis
Passport complains of trademark infringement in two contexts. First, Passport claims that

Avance infringed on its PASSPORT HEALTH marks when it purchased the AdWord "Passport
Health" from Bing. Cmp.

~

14. As Avance argues, however, Passport has failed to identify any

decision which has held that the mere purchase of an AdWord from a search engine constitutes
trademark infringement, and the Court is unpersuaded to hold so here. See JG. Wentworth, S.S.C.
Ltd. P 'ship v. Settlement Funding LLC, No. CIV.A.06-0597, 2007 WL 30115, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Jan.
4, 2007) (no infringement for purchase of AdWord as no likelihood of confusion); Gov't
Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:04CV507, 2005 WL 1903128, at *1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8,
2005) ("mere use by Google of the GEICO trademark as ·a search term or keyword, even in the
context of Google's advertising program, [does not] violate ... the Lanham Act").
Passport also complains about the use or appearance of the PASSPORT HEALTH mark in
Avance Care's advertisement, and argues that a finding of infringement in either context is
sufficient. Thus, the Court considers whether either party is entitled to summary judgment as to
trademark infringement for the appearance of the PASSPORT HEALTH mark in Avance Care's
Bing advertisement. The parties do dispute that Passport's marks are protectable, and that the
inquiry here turns on whether there is a likelihood of confusion.
Passport argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Avance used its
identical mark in the Bing advertisement, and therefore there is a presumption of a likelihood of
confusion. The cases Passport relies on which found that a presumption of confusion was
appropriate are, however, distinguishable.

For example, in Putt-Putt, LLC v. 416 Constant

Friendship, LLC, 936 F. Supp. 2d 648, 659 (D. Md. 2013), the court found a presumption of
confusion when analyzing the sixth Pizzeria Uno factor - the defendant's intent - where the

7

defendant operated a facility that was once an authorized franchisee of the plaintiff, and continued
to use the plaintiffs marks in labeling and advertising. Here, there was no franchisee relationship
and it is undisputed that Avance Care does not use any PASSPORT HEALTH mark in connection
with its actual facilities; rather, the only issue is whether the appearance of the PASSPORT
HEALTH mark in this internet advertisement amounts to trademark infringement. The Court
declines to afford Passport a presumption of confusion and will go on to consider the relevant
Pizzeria Uno factors.
Although it has acquired incontestable status, PASSPORT HEALTH is not a strong or
distinctive mark.

Where, as here, a trademark has gained incontestable status by not being

successfully challenged within five years of registration, there is a strong presumption of
predictability and validity, and the mark is entitled to substantial protection. Synergistic Int' l, LLC
v. Korman, 470 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2006); Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of
Virginia, Inc., 43 FJd 922, 935 (4th Cir. 1995). However, while the validity of an incontestable
mark may not be challenged, the presumption of strength afforded to the mark by incontestable
status maybe challenged by a defendant. Lone Star, 43 FJd at 935. Indeed, even an incontestable
mark may not be strong. See H Jay Spiegel & Assocs., P.C. v. Spiegel, 652 F. Supp. 2d 639, 649
(E.D. Va. 2009).
"The strength of a mark is the degree to which a consumer in the relevant population, upon
encountering the mark, would associate the mark with a unique source," CareFirst, 434 FJd at
269, and there is a greater risk of confusion when a trademark is strong or distinctive. Kibler v.
Hall, 843 F.3d 1068, 1073 (6th Cir. 2016). Trademark strength is evaluated in terms ofconceptual
and commercial strength. Id. There is a continuum of conceptual trademark strength, with marks
being classified as generic, descriptive, suggestive, and arbitrary or fanciful. Pizzeria Uno, 747

8

F.2d at 1527. 3 A mark is descriptive when it imparts information directly, and "if it stands for an
idea which requires some operation of the imagination to connect it with the goods, it is
suggestive." Id. at 1528. Marks that are descriptive are only protected when they have acquired
secondary meaning. See Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81F.3d455, 464 (4th Cir. 1996).
Aside from relying on a presumption of strength afforded to an incontestable mark,
Passport does not argue in its motion for summary judgment that its mark is strong. In arguing
that the PASSPORT HEALTH mark is weak, Avance has proffered evidence of a number of other
trademarks which include the terms "passport" and "health," and correctly argues that where a
number of third parties use a plaintiffs marks, especially where the marks are used for the same
or similar services, a finding that there is a lack of conceptual strength is appropriate. CareFirst,
434 F.3d at 269-270. This is because if PASSPORT HEALTH were a conceptually distinctive
term or a strong mark, "it is unlikely that so many other businesses in the health care industry
would independently think of using the same mark or similar variants of it." Id. at 270.
Extensive third-party use also cuts against a finding of commercial strength, id., and
Passport has come forward with no additional evidence of commercial strength. See George &
Co. LLC v. Imagination Entm 't Ltd., 575 F .3d 383, 395 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court finds that the

PASSPORT HEALTH mark is conceptually weak and, in the absence of any demonstration of
secondary meaning or commercial strength, this factor tips in favor of a finding that there was no
likelihood of confusion.
The phrase Passport Health was used in the language of Avance's advertisement, and thus
the offending advertisement contained language identical to Passport's trademark. However the
\

context of the use was not similar. This is a case about an advertisement on an internet search

3

There is no argument that the PASSPORT HEALTH mark is arbitrary or fanciful.
9

engine, which requires an examination of the context in which the advertisement was placed and
the way in which internet users encounter and treat similar advertisements. "Indeed, in evaluating
claims of trademark infringement in cases involving Internet search engi~es, [the Ninth Circuit]
ha[s] found particularly important an additional factor ... : 'the labeling and appearance of the
advertisements and the surrounding context on the screen displaying the results page."' Multi

Time Mach., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 804 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Put
another way, "[i]n the keyword advertising context the 'likelihood of confusion will ultimately
turn on what the consumer saw on the screen and reasonably believed, given the context."'

Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc., 638 f .3d 1137, 1153 (9th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Hearts on Fire Co. v. Blue Nile, Inc., 603 F. Supp.2d 274, 289 (D. Mass. 2009)).
The webpage which was displayed on Bing after a search for "passport health Raleigh NC"
included first and in the center of the page Passport's own website. On the right side of the page,
in a column containing smaller print, is first a list of "related searches" and then an advertisement
titled "Passport Health Clinic - Serving the Triangle Metro Area in NC" above a line reading "Ad
www.AvanceCare.com". A search engine's segregation of the search results on the page so that
advertisements appear in separately labeled sections, in smaller or different font, or with shading
lessens the likelihood that consumers will be confused. See Network Automation, 638 F.3d at
1154. Avance' s advertisement is clearly labeled as an "Ad," and its placement on the search results
page separate from the primary or natural results and in smaller font further lessens the likelihood
of consumer confusion.
Avance has also proffered evidence that should a consumer click on its Bing advertisement,
the consumer would be presented with a webpage that clearly identifies its source, Avance Care,
and makes no mention of Passport Health. Avance Care's website and Passport Health's websites

10

are also dissimilar, so a consumer attempting to search for a Passport Health location would
recognize that Avance Care and Passport Health are not affiliated. In regard to Avance' s intent,
Avance has proffered a declaration that it believed that it had discontinued use of Passport Health
in internet advertising in 2013, that it had no knowledge of the use of the PASSPORT HEALTH
mark on Bing, that it had no intent to infringe or gain any benefit from the use of Passport's mark,
and never instructed its marketing companies to purchase the Passport Health AdWord. [DE 604] Layden Deel.~~ 9-16.
Perhaps most importantly, there has been no evidence proffered by Passport of actual
confusion. While Passport is correct to argue that evidence of actual confusion is not required,
''the absence of any evidence of actual confusion over a substantial period of time ... creates a
strong inference that there is no likelihood of confusion." CareFirst, 434 F.3d at 269. Avance has
proffered evidence that the Bing advertisement was clicked 1.4 times per month for the three years
which preceded this case, and that only .012% of visits to Avance Care's website during a twentysix month period came from the Bing advertisement. See George & Co., 575 F.3d at 398 (4th Cir.
2009) ("[e]vidence of only a small number of instances of actual confusion may be dismissed as
de minimis."). It is undisputed that Bing's share of the search engine market is minimal as
compared to Google's, and there is simply no evidence that any consumers clicked on the Avance
Care ad and were confused.

In essence, Passport has argued that because the phrase "passport health" appears in
Avance's Bing advertisement, trademark infringement has been conclusively established. On the
contrary, however, "even when alleged infringers use the very marks at issue . .. , courts look to
the underlying content to determine whether [there is] a likelihood of confusion as to source."
Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, 316 n.4 (4th Cir. 2005). Although a few of the Pizzeria Uno

11

factors weigh in favor of a finding of confusion - that, without examining context, the mark used
was identical and that there is a similarity of services as both Passport and Avance offer travel
immunizations and related medical services - the most important factors in this case weigh
decidedly in favor of a finding that there was no likelihood of confusion. Specifically, despite its
incontestable status, the PASSPORT HEALTH mark is not strong or distinctive in the medical
services field; the context in which Avance's Bing advertisement appeared distinguished it as a
related search advertisement and not as a natural search result; there is no evidence of actual
confusion; and, given the infrequency with which the Avance Bing advertisement was
encountered, the opportunity for actual confusion would be de minimus at best.
Accordingly, as there are no genuine factual issues which could be resolved in favor of
either party, summary judgment in favor of Avance is appropriate on Passport's Lanham Act
trademark infringement claims. As it has been established. that there was no likelihood of
confusion, and because the tests for North Carolina common law unfair competition and unfair
and deceptive trade practices in the context of trademark are similar to that for trademark
infringement, summary judgment in favor of Avance on these claims is also appropriate. See

Georgia Pac. Consumer Prod., LP v. Von Drehle Corp., 618 F.3d 441, 449 (4th Cir. 2010); Polo
Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc., 816 F.2d 145, 148 (4th Cir. 1987).
The Court in its discretion declines to consider Passport's remaining state law claim for
breach of contract, and that claim is dismissed without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Farlow

v. Wachovia BankofN Carolina, NA., 259 F.3d 309, 316 (4th Cir. 2001).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment [DE 58] is
GRANTED IN PART and judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant on plaintiff's Lanham

12

Act trademark infringement claims, common law trademark infringement claim, and unfair and
deceptive trade practice claim. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
plaintiffs remaining state law claim for breach of contract, and that claim is DISMISSED without
prejudice. Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment [DE 52] is DENIED.
Plaintiffs motion to amend/correct the complaint to join additional defendants [DE 35] is
DENIED as MOOT. Because they concern propriety data, business, or financial information, the
motions to seal [DE 39 & 65] are GRANTED.

SO ORDERED, this dday of December, 2018.

ERRENCE W. BOYLE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT

13