UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PLAINTIFF MERIDIAN CONSUMER BRANDS LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Filed: November 18, 2022
Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10020
Alan Ngo (Responsible Partner) Marcus Delgado (Billing Partner) Christy Bauer (Lead Associate) Peter Vassiliev (Associate)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Meridian Consumer Brands LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Right-click to update Table of Contents
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Statutes
Rules
Treatises and Other Authorities
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff Meridian Consumer Brands LLC ("MCB") is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered at 450 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10016. MCB is a leading consumer packaged goods company operating across household cleaning, personal care, and home fragrance product lines, with approximately $387 million in total revenue for fiscal year 2022. MCB's flagship household cleaning product line—sold under the MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN marks—has been a fixture of the American consumer marketplace for more than a decade, generating approximately $94.5 million in revenue in FY 2022 alone and representing approximately 24.4% of MCB's total annual revenue.
MCB is the owner of three valid and incontestable federal trademark registrations for marks incorporating "MERIDIAN" in International Class 3 (cleaning preparations): U.S. Registration No. 4,218,506 for the mark MERIDIAN in standard characters, registered August 14, 2012; U.S. Registration No. 5,034,771 for the mark MERIDIAN CLEAN in standard characters, registered October 18, 2016; and U.S. Registration No. 5,589,320 for the MERIDIAN stylized logo with wave device, registered July 10, 2018. MCB has continuously used the MERIDIAN mark in commerce in connection with cleaning products since approximately 2011—a period of over eleven years of uninterrupted use predating any activity by Defendant.
The MERIDIAN-branded cleaning product line is one of the most significant revenue drivers in MCB's portfolio. In addition to the $94.5 million in revenue generated in FY 2022, MCB has invested a cumulative $47.2 million in advertising and promotion of the MERIDIAN cleaning line from 2011 through 2022, an average of approximately $3.93 million per year. Through these sustained investments and consistent product quality, MCB has built substantial consumer recognition and goodwill in the MERIDIAN mark.
Defendant Brindoval Home Goods Inc. ("Brindoval") is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in Edina, Minnesota. Brindoval operates a regional big-box home goods retail chain comprising 148 stores across 12 Midwestern and Mountain West states, supplemented by an e-commerce platform at www.crestviewhomegoods.com. Brindoval reported approximately $2.1 billion in total revenue for FY 2022.
In July 2022, Brindoval launched a private-label line of household cleaning products—including an all-purpose spray, glass cleaner, disinfecting wipes, and dish soap—under the mark "MERIDIAN FRESH." Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products feature packaging with a teal-and-white color scheme and a stylized wave device that is confusingly similar to MCB's own registered wave-device logo. Brindoval filed trademark application Serial No. 97/412,558 for the MERIDIAN FRESH mark on May 12, 2022, and began selling products under that mark in July 2022—before the application even published for opposition on September 6, 2022. In short, Brindoval barreled into the marketplace with a mark and trade dress that directly trade on the goodwill that MCB has painstakingly built over more than a decade.
The confusion generated by Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products is not speculative. A consumer confusion survey conducted by Dr. Elaine Furman of Lakeshore Brand Consulting LLC in October 2022, using a Squirt-design / modified Eveready protocol with 612 respondents, found a net confusion rate of 31.4%. That is, after accounting for the noise level in a control group, nearly one in three consumers exposed to MERIDIAN FRESH packaging mistakenly believed the product was made by, affiliated with, or sponsored by the maker of MERIDIAN CLEAN products. A net confusion rate of 31.4% constitutes powerful evidence of likelihood of confusion under governing Second Circuit precedent.
MCB now respectfully moves this Court for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), enjoining Brindoval from any further use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and the associated confusingly similar trade dress on household cleaning products during the pendency of this action. As demonstrated below, MCB readily satisfies each element of the preliminary injunction standard: (1) MCB is likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claims; (2) MCB will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; (3) the balance of hardships tips decidedly in MCB's favor; and (4) the public interest supports the entry of an injunction. MCB respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter the Proposed Order filed herewith.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Meridian Consumer Brands LLC and Its MERIDIAN Marks
Meridian Consumer Brands LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 450 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10016. MCB is a consumer packaged goods company that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes products across three core categories: household cleaning, personal care, and home fragrance. MCB's products are distributed through major grocery chains, club stores (including Harborview Enterprises and Westmark Industries), mass-market retailers, and leading e-commerce channels—including Penmark Holdings and MCB's own direct-to-consumer website—in all fifty states. (Declaration of Rachel Dominguez ("Dominguez Decl.") ¶¶ 3–5.)
MCB is a portfolio company of Waypoint Capital Partners LLC, a mid-market private equity firm based in New York. In 2019, Waypoint acquired MCB for approximately $625 million, a transaction value that reflected the substantial worth of MCB's brand portfolio and, in particular, the strength and consumer recognition of the MERIDIAN mark for cleaning products. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 6.) MCB is led by Chief Executive Officer Sandra Kwan. Thomas R. Hennessy serves as General Counsel. Rachel Dominguez serves as Vice President of Brand Management and has been responsible for the development, marketing, and strategic positioning of the MERIDIAN cleaning line since 2017. (Dominguez Decl. ¶¶ 7–9.)
MCB first used the MERIDIAN mark in commerce in connection with cleaning products in approximately 2011, when it launched an initial line of all-purpose cleaners and glass cleaners under the MERIDIAN brand. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 10.) Over the ensuing eleven-plus years, MCB has steadily expanded the MERIDIAN cleaning line to include all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, disinfecting sprays, floor cleaners, and related household cleaning preparations. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 11.)
MCB holds three valid and subsisting United States trademark registrations for marks incorporating "MERIDIAN," all in International Class 3 (cleaning preparations):
1. U.S. Registration No. 4,218,506 — MERIDIAN (standard character mark), International Class 3 (cleaning preparations), registered August 14, 2012, on the Principal Register. This registration has been continuously maintained and has been in force for over ten years. MCB has used the MERIDIAN mark continuously in commerce since approximately 2011—well in excess of the five consecutive years of use post-registration required for incontestable status under Section 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. A (certified copy of registration).)
2. U.S. Registration No. 5,034,771 — MERIDIAN CLEAN (standard character mark), International Class 3 (cleaning preparations), registered October 18, 2016, on the Principal Register. This registration has been continuously maintained for over six years. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 13; Ex. B (certified copy of registration).)
3. U.S. Registration No. 5,589,320 — MERIDIAN (stylized logo with wave device), International Class 3 (cleaning preparations), registered July 10, 2018, on the Principal Register. The stylized logo features the word "MERIDIAN" rendered in a distinctive typeface accompanied by a flowing, curved wave device in teal. This stylized mark appears on the face of MCB's product packaging and in MCB's advertising and promotional materials. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 14; Ex. C (certified copy of registration).)
All three registrations cover goods in International Class 3—cleaning preparations—which is the identical class in which Defendant's MERIDIAN FRESH products compete.
The products sold under the MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN marks include all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, disinfecting sprays, and floor cleaners. These products are marketed and sold through major grocery chains (including Bramwell Partners LLC, Westvale Partners LLC, and Sundial & Co.), club stores (including Harborview Enterprises Wholesale and Westmark Industries), and e-commerce channels (including Penmark Holdings and MCB's own website) in all fifty states. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 15.)
The MERIDIAN cleaning line is the largest single product line within MCB's portfolio. In fiscal year 2022, the MERIDIAN cleaning line generated approximately $94.5 million in revenue, representing approximately 24.4% of MCB's total revenue of approximately $387 million. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 16.) MCB's revenue from the MERIDIAN cleaning line has grown steadily since the line's launch in 2011, reflecting the increasing strength and recognition of the mark in the marketplace. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 17.)
MCB has made sustained and substantial investments in the advertising and promotion of the MERIDIAN cleaning line. From 2011 through 2022, MCB invested a cumulative total of approximately $47.2 million in advertising and promotional expenditures for the MERIDIAN brand, an average of approximately $3.93 million per year over the twelve-year period. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 18.) These expenditures encompass national television advertising, digital marketing (including paid search, social media campaigns, and programmatic display advertising), in-store promotional displays, co-operative advertising with retail partners, influencer partnerships, and sampling programs. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 19.) MCB's advertising has appeared in prominent media outlets and on major digital platforms, reaching millions of American consumers each year. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 20.)
As a result of these sustained investments, broad distribution, and consistent product quality, the MERIDIAN mark has acquired strong consumer recognition and substantial goodwill in the household cleaning products category. The Declaration of Rachel Dominguez, filed concurrently herewith, attests in detail to MCB's brand history, revenue figures, advertising investments, distribution reach, and instances of actual consumer confusion. (Dominguez Decl. ¶¶ 3–35.)
B. Brindoval's Adoption and Use of the MERIDIAN FRESH Mark and Trade Dress
Defendant Brindoval Home Goods Inc. is a Minnesota corporation headquartered at 7200 France Avenue South, Suite 300, Edina, Minnesota 55435. Brindoval is a regional big-box home goods retailer that operates 148 stores across twelve Midwestern and Mountain West states (including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah) and maintains an e-commerce platform at www.crestviewhomegoods.com. Brindoval reported total revenue of approximately $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2022. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 22, citing publicly available filings.)
Brindoval is led by Chief Executive Officer Douglas P. Lindstrom. Karen A. Whitfield serves as General Counsel. Nathan Cho serves as Vice President of Private Label Development and, upon information and belief, oversaw the creation of the MERIDIAN FRESH line and the selection of the mark and trade dress at issue in this action. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 23.)
Beginning in 2021, Brindoval embarked on a strategy to expand its private-label product offerings across multiple categories. As part of that expansion, in 2022 Brindoval developed and launched a line of household cleaning products under the mark "MERIDIAN FRESH." On May 12, 2022, Brindoval filed United States trademark application Serial No. 97/412,558 for MERIDIAN FRESH in standard characters, seeking registration in International Class 3 for cleaning preparations. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 24.) Just two months later, in July 2022, Brindoval launched MERIDIAN FRESH products in its retail stores and on its e-commerce platform—before the application had even published for opposition. The application was ultimately published for opposition in the Official Gazette on September 6, 2022. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 25.)
The MERIDIAN FRESH product line encompasses four products that directly overlap with MCB's MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN product offerings: an all-purpose spray, a glass cleaner, disinfecting wipes, and a dish soap. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 26.) Each of these products competes head-to-head with MCB's corresponding products in the same retail and e-commerce channels where consumers encounter both parties' goods.
Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH packaging compounds the likelihood of confusion. The packaging features a teal-and-white color scheme—the same color palette long associated with MCB's MERIDIAN products—and a stylized wave device that closely resembles MCB's registered wave-device logo (U.S. Registration No. 5,589,320). (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 27; Ex. D (side-by-side comparison of MCB's and Brindoval's packaging).) The overall commercial impression created by the combination of the MERIDIAN FRESH word mark, the teal-and-white color scheme, and the wave device is strikingly similar to the commercial impression of MCB's MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN products.
MERIDIAN FRESH products are sold in all 148 of Brindoval's retail locations and on Brindoval's e-commerce platform. In just five months since launch (July through November 2022), the MERIDIAN FRESH line has generated approximately $6.8 million in gross revenue, with projected annualized revenue of approximately $16.3 million. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 28.) These sales figures reflect rapidly growing market penetration of the infringing mark and trade dress, which, if left unchecked, will cause escalating and compounding harm to MCB's brand equity and market position.
C. Procedural Background
On September 26, 2022, counsel for MCB at Calderwood & Harkness LLP sent a detailed cease-and-desist letter to Brindoval, addressed to General Counsel Karen A. Whitfield, identifying MCB's federal trademark registrations, setting forth the basis for MCB's claims of infringement, and demanding that Brindoval immediately cease all use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress on cleaning products and voluntarily withdraw application Serial No. 97/412,558. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 29; Ex. E (cease-and-desist letter).)
On October 10, 2022, the law firm of Halverson McKay & Pruitt LLP, through lead partner Gregory T. Halverson, responded on behalf of Brindoval. The response denied that Brindoval's use of MERIDIAN FRESH infringed any of MCB's trademark rights, asserted that the marks were sufficiently distinct, and declined to cease use or withdraw the pending application. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 30; Ex. F (Brindoval's response letter).)
On October 14, 2022, MCB filed a Notice of Opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Opposition No. 91/278,415, opposing the registration of Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH mark under application Serial No. 97/412,558 on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with MCB's prior registrations. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 31.)
On November 7, 2022, MCB filed the Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, initiating this action as Case No. 1:22-cv-09483, assigned to the Honorable Patricia M. Albright. The Complaint asserts claims for: (1) trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); (2) false designation of origin and unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (3) trademark infringement and unfair competition under New York General Business Law § 360-l. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 32.)
On this date, November 18, 2022, MCB files the present Motion for Preliminary Injunction, supported by this Memorandum of Law, the Declaration of Rachel Dominguez (with Exhibits A through G), the Declaration of Dr. Elaine Furman (Consumer Confusion Survey Report, with appendices), and a Proposed Order.
ARGUMENT
I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish four elements: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the movant's favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Supreme Court has emphasized that a preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right," and that the moving party must make a "clear showing" that it is entitled to such relief. Id. at 22.
In the Second Circuit, the Winter framework applies to preliminary injunctions in trademark cases. Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 79–80 (2d Cir. 2010). Following Salinger, a plaintiff in a Lanham Act case must demonstrate that it is "likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction," though the court need not require that such harm be proven to an absolute certainty. Id. at 80.
Significantly, in trademark cases, the Second Circuit has long recognized that a showing of likelihood of confusion establishes a presumption of irreparable harm. See Lobo Enters., Inc. v. Tunnel, Inc., 822 F.2d 331, 333 (2d Cir. 1987) ("A showing of likelihood of confusion . . . establishes . . . irreparable harm."); Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Rest., L.L.C., 360 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2004) (same). While the Supreme Court's decision in Northgate Group v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and the Second Circuit's decision in Salinger have prompted some reconsideration of whether irreparable harm may be "presumed," courts in this Circuit continue to find irreparable harm readily established in trademark cases where likelihood of confusion is demonstrated, because the resulting injury to goodwill, brand reputation, and consumer perception is inherently difficult or impossible to quantify in monetary terms. This Court should follow that well-established approach here.
Section 34(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), expressly authorizes courts to "grant injunctions, according to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent the violation of any right of the registrant of a mark." This statutory authorization reflects Congress's recognition that injunctive relief is a cornerstone of trademark protection. The court's equitable powers under Section 34(a) are broad and flexible, and the court has wide discretion in fashioning injunctive relief appropriate to the circumstances.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs the procedural requirements for the issuance of preliminary injunctions. Under Rule 65(c), the court may require the movant to post security "in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." The court retains discretion in determining the amount of any bond, and in trademark cases where the movant has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success, courts routinely set a nominal bond or waive the bond requirement altogether.
As demonstrated below, MCB satisfies each of the four elements required for a preliminary injunction. MCB has a clear likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement claims, will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, the balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor, and the public interest supports the entry of an injunction.
II. MCB IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS
A. MCB Owns Valid and Enforceable Federal Trademark Registrations. As a threshold matter, MCB holds three valid and subsisting federal trademark registrations for marks incorporating "MERIDIAN" in International Class 3 (cleaning preparations). Federal registration on the Principal Register constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark, the registrant's ownership of the mark, and the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods specified in the registration. 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a). These presumptions shift the burden to the alleged infringer to rebut validity and ownership, and they entitle MCB to invoke the protections of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).
MCB's three registrations are as follows:
U.S. Registration No. 4,218,506 — The mark MERIDIAN in standard characters, registered on August 14, 2012, for cleaning preparations in International Class 3. This registration has been continuously maintained and has been in force for more than ten years. MCB has used the MERIDIAN mark continuously in commerce in connection with cleaning products since approximately 2011, a period of over eleven years. Because the mark has been in continuous use for more than five consecutive years following the date of registration, MCB is eligible for—and, upon information and belief, has obtained—incontestable status for this registration pursuant to Section 15 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Incontestable status renders the registration "conclusive evidence" of MCB's exclusive right to use the mark in commerce, subject only to the limited defenses enumerated in Section 33(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b).
U.S. Registration No. 5,034,771 — The mark MERIDIAN CLEAN in standard characters, registered on October 18, 2016, for cleaning preparations in International Class 3. This registration has been continuously maintained for more than six years.
U.S. Registration No. 5,589,320 — The mark MERIDIAN in a stylized logo format with wave device, registered on July 10, 2018, for cleaning preparations in International Class 3. This stylized mark features a distinctive teal wave device that has become closely associated with MCB's cleaning products in the minds of consumers.
All three registrations cover goods in International Class 3—the identical International Class in which Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products compete. Brindoval's own pending application, Serial No. 97/412,558, likewise seeks registration in International Class 3 for cleaning preparations. The complete overlap in classes underscores the head-to-head competitive relationship between the parties' respective marks and products.
MCB's registrations are valid, subsisting, and owned by MCB. They have not been challenged, cancelled, or otherwise impaired. They constitute powerful evidence of MCB's exclusive right to use marks incorporating "MERIDIAN" in connection with cleaning products—a right that Brindoval's unauthorized adoption of MERIDIAN FRESH directly violates.
B. Application of the *Polaroid* Factors Demonstrates Likelihood of Confusion. The central inquiry in a trademark infringement case under both Section 32(1) and Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act is whether the defendant's use of a mark is "likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive" consumers as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the defendant's goods. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a). In the Second Circuit, likelihood of confusion is assessed under the eight-factor test set forth in Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961). The eight Polaroid factors are:
(1) the strength of the plaintiff's mark;
(2) the degree of similarity between the two marks;
(3) the proximity of the products;
(4) the likelihood that the prior owner will "bridge the gap" by entering the defendant's market;
(5) evidence of actual confusion;
(6) the defendant's good faith in adopting its mark;
(7) the quality of the defendant's product; and
(8) the sophistication of consumers.
Polaroid, 287 F.2d at 495. "No single factor is dispositive, nor is a court limited to consideration of only those factors." Lois Sportswear, Ltd. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867, 872 (2d Cir. 1986). Rather, the court must weigh the totality of the factors in light of the circumstances of each case. Star Indus., Inc. v. Bacardi & Co., 412 F.3d 373, 384 (2d Cir. 2005). A plaintiff need not demonstrate that every factor favors it; the analysis is a balancing test, and the ultimate question is whether, considering all relevant factors, there is a probability—not merely a possibility—of consumer confusion. Savin Corp. v. Savin Grp., 391 F.3d 439, 456 (2d Cir. 2004).
As demonstrated below, application of the Polaroid factors establishes a clear likelihood of confusion between MCB's MERIDIAN marks and Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress.
##### 1. Strength of MCB's MERIDIAN Mark
The first Polaroid factor examines the strength of the plaintiff's mark, which is assessed along two dimensions: inherent distinctiveness and acquired distinctiveness (commercial strength). Star Indus., 412 F.3d at 384. A strong mark is entitled to a broader scope of protection against confusingly similar marks. Hasbro, Inc. v. Lanard Toys, Ltd., 858 F.2d 70, 73 (2d Cir. 1988).
Inherent Distinctiveness. The word "MERIDIAN" is, at a minimum, suggestive—and more likely arbitrary—when applied to cleaning products. The term "meridian" refers to a circle of longitude on the earth's surface, or to a peak or zenith of achievement. It does not describe any quality, characteristic, function, ingredient, or attribute of cleaning preparations. A consumer encountering the word "MERIDIAN" on a bottle of cleaning spray would need to exercise imagination to connect the mark to the underlying product. Under the well-established Abercrombie spectrum—fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, generic—the MERIDIAN mark falls comfortably within the range of marks that are inherently distinctive and thus protectable without proof of secondary meaning. See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11:2 (5th ed. 2022). The mark's registration on the Principal Register without any claim of acquired distinctiveness further confirms its inherent distinctiveness.
Acquired Distinctiveness / Commercial Strength. Even beyond its inherent distinctiveness, the MERIDIAN mark has acquired extraordinary commercial strength through MCB's extensive and sustained use, advertising, and sales. The undisputed record evidence establishes the following indicia of commercial strength:
• Duration of use: MCB has used the MERIDIAN mark continuously in commerce for cleaning products since approximately 2011—a period of more than eleven years prior to Brindoval's launch of MERIDIAN FRESH. See Dominguez Decl. ¶ 10.
• Revenue: The MERIDIAN cleaning product line generated approximately $94.5 million in revenue in FY 2022 alone. See Dominguez Decl. ¶ 16. This figure represents approximately 24.4% of MCB's total revenue of $387 million, making the MERIDIAN cleaning line MCB's flagship product line.
• Advertising and promotional investment: MCB has invested a cumulative total of approximately $47.2 million in advertising and promotion of the MERIDIAN cleaning line from 2011 through 2022—an average of approximately $3.93 million per year. See Dominguez Decl. ¶ 18. These expenditures span national television, digital marketing, in-store promotion, co-operative advertising with retail partners, influencer partnerships, and consumer sampling programs.
• Breadth of distribution: MCB's MERIDIAN products are distributed in all fifty states through major grocery chains, club stores, and e-commerce channels, reaching a vast and diverse consumer base. See Dominguez Decl. ¶ 15.
• Federal registrations: MCB holds three federal registrations for MERIDIAN-formative marks in the relevant class, including a registration that has been in force for over a decade. Registration on the Principal Register is itself evidence that the mark is distinctive. See Virgin Enters. Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141, 148 (2d Cir. 2003).
Taken together, these facts demonstrate that the MERIDIAN mark possesses both inherent and acquired distinctiveness. It is a commercially strong mark, well known to consumers, and entitled to a broad scope of protection. This factor weighs heavily in MCB's favor.
##### 2. Similarity of the Marks
The second Polaroid factor requires the court to compare the marks at issue in terms of their overall commercial impression, considering their similarity in appearance (sight), sound, and meaning. Gruner + Jahr USA Publ'g v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1078 (2d Cir. 1993). "The key inquiry is whether the overall impression created by the marks is such that they are sufficiently similar that confusion is likely to result." Id.
A comparison of MCB's marks—MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN CLEAN, and the MERIDIAN stylized logo with wave device—with Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH mark reveals a high degree of similarity across all three dimensions.
Sight. Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH mark incorporates the entirety of MCB's registered MERIDIAN mark—the dominant, distinctive element of all three of MCB's registrations. The word "MERIDIAN" is the first and most prominent word in MERIDIAN FRESH. The addition of the descriptive or weakly suggestive word "FRESH"—a word commonly used in the cleaning product industry to connote scent or effectiveness—does not sufficiently distinguish the two marks visually. Consumers encountering "MERIDIAN FRESH" on a cleaning product label will inevitably be drawn to the dominant word "MERIDIAN" and will associate the product with the source they know under that name. The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that "the use of a dominant element of one mark in another is likely to cause confusion." Gruner + Jahr, 991 F.2d at 1078.
The visual similarity is compounded by Brindoval's trade dress. Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH packaging employs a teal-and-white color scheme and features a stylized wave device that closely resembles the wave device in MCB's registered MERIDIAN logo (U.S. Reg. No. 5,589,320). When consumers encounter MERIDIAN FRESH products on a retail shelf, the combination of the word mark and the trade dress creates an overall visual impression that is strikingly similar to the commercial impression of MCB's MERIDIAN products. (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 27; Ex. D.)
Sound. The mark MERIDIAN FRESH is phonetically dominated by the four-syllable word "MERIDIAN." The terminal addition of the single-syllable word "FRESH" does not alter the aural impression conveyed by the dominant "MERIDIAN" element. When spoken aloud—by a consumer asking a store clerk for assistance, by a friend recommending a product, or in a television or radio advertisement—"MERIDIAN FRESH" sounds like a variant of or line extension to "MERIDIAN."
Meaning. Both marks share the identical dominant semantic element: "MERIDIAN." The word "FRESH" adds only a secondary, descriptive connotation suggesting a scent variant, a new formulation, or a product line extension—not a different source. Indeed, the addition of "FRESH" to "MERIDIAN" is precisely the type of modifier that consumers would expect a brand owner to use when extending or refreshing an existing product line. The structure of "MERIDIAN FRESH" closely parallels MCB's own "MERIDIAN CLEAN" mark, further reinforcing the perception that MERIDIAN FRESH is another product in the same family.
Considering the marks' overall commercial impression in terms of sight, sound, and meaning—and taking into account the confusingly similar trade dress—this factor weighs strongly in MCB's favor.
##### 3. Proximity of the Products
The third Polaroid factor examines the competitive proximity of the parties' products. Where the products are "identical or closely related," this factor weighs heavily in the plaintiff's favor because there is a "greater likelihood that consumers mistakenly will assume that [the defendant's] product comes from the same source" as the plaintiff's. Lois Sportswear, 799 F.2d at 873.
Here, the products are not merely related—they are, for all practical purposes, identical. MCB's MERIDIAN and MERIDIAN CLEAN product lines include all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, disinfecting sprays, and floor cleaners. Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH product line includes an all-purpose spray, a glass cleaner, disinfecting wipes, and a dish soap. The overlap is direct, substantial, and unmistakable: both parties sell all-purpose cleaners, glass cleaners, and disinfecting products under marks sharing the dominant element "MERIDIAN." (Dominguez Decl. ¶ 26.)
Both parties' products are sold in International Class 3—cleaning preparations—the identical classification. Both parties distribute their products through retail stores and e-commerce channels. While MCB's distribution is nationwide and Brindoval's retail footprint is concentrated in twelve Midwestern and Mountain West states, the products are nonetheless encountered by overlapping consumer populations: consumers in Brindoval's retail markets who are familiar with MCB's MERIDIAN products (available in grocery, club, and e-commerce channels in all fifty states) may also encounter Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products in Brindoval's stores or on Brindoval's website. Moreover, Brindoval's e-commerce platform (www.crestviewhomegoods.com) is accessible to consumers nationwide, further expanding the geographic overlap.
The competitive proximity of the products is as close as it could possibly be. This factor weighs decisively in MCB's favor.
##### 4. Bridging the Gap
The fourth Polaroid factor considers the likelihood that the senior user will "bridge the gap" between the parties' products by entering the junior user's market. This factor is most relevant where the parties' products occupy different market segments or product categories, and the court must assess whether the senior user is likely to expand into the junior user's market space. Star Indus., 412 F.3d at 387.
Here, there is no gap to bridge. MCB's MERIDIAN products and Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products compete in the identical product category: household cleaning preparations. The products overlap in kind, class, and function. Both are sold to the same end consumers through overlapping distribution channels. Where the products are "directly competing," the bridging-the-gap factor is either neutral or weighs in the plaintiff's favor, because the parties are already operating in the same marketplace. Id.
This factor favors MCB or, at a minimum, is neutral.
##### 5. Actual Confusion
The fifth Polaroid factor—evidence of actual confusion—is often considered the most compelling evidence of likelihood of confusion, because it demonstrates that confusion is not merely theoretical but has occurred or is occurring in the real world. Lois Sportswear, 799 F.2d at 875.
MCB has presented both survey evidence and anecdotal evidence of actual consumer confusion.
Survey Evidence. Dr. Elaine Furman of Lakeshore Brand Consulting LLC, a recognized expert in consumer confusion survey methodology with over twenty years of experience, conducted a consumer confusion survey in October 2022. The survey employed a Squirt-design / modified Eveready protocol—a methodology widely accepted by courts in the Second Circuit and elsewhere for assessing likelihood of confusion in trademark cases. See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 32:174 (5th ed. 2022).
The survey was administered to 612 respondents who were screened to be primary or shared household shoppers with responsibility for purchasing household cleaning products. Respondents were exposed to images of Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH packaging (the "test" stimulus) or, in the control group, to packaging bearing a fictitious mark (the "control" stimulus). Respondents were then asked a series of open-ended questions designed to ascertain whether they believed the product shown was made by, affiliated with, or sponsored by the maker of MERIDIAN CLEAN products.
The results were as follows:
• Raw confusion rate (test group): 38.6% of respondents exposed to MERIDIAN FRESH packaging indicated that they believed the product was made by, affiliated with, or sponsored by the maker of MERIDIAN CLEAN products.
• Noise rate (control group): 7.2% of respondents in the control group provided a similar response—a typical background noise level for a well-designed survey.
• Net confusion rate: 38.6% − 7.2% = 31.4%.
A net confusion rate of 31.4% is strong evidence of likelihood of confusion by any standard. Courts in the Second Circuit have found net confusion rates considerably lower than 31.4% to be probative—and, in many cases, dispositive—of likely confusion. Surveys showing net confusion rates above fifteen to twenty percent are generally considered strong evidence of likely confusion. See Hasbro, 858 F.2d at 73 (finding survey evidence showing confusion rate of approximately 20% to be probative); Savin Corp., 391 F.3d at 457 (noting that survey evidence showing confusion above 15% is "strong" evidence of likelihood of confusion). Here, the 31.4% net confusion rate far exceeds these thresholds and establishes that roughly one in three consumers exposed to MERIDIAN FRESH packaging mistakenly associates it with MCB as the source or sponsor.
The full methodology, respondent demographics, stimuli, verbatim responses, and statistical analysis are set forth in detail in the Declaration of Dr. Elaine Furman, filed concurrently herewith.
Anecdotal Evidence. In addition to the survey evidence, the Declaration of Rachel Dominguez attests to reports received by MCB's customer service team from consumers who mistakenly believed that MERIDIAN FRESH products were manufactured by MCB, were a new MCB product, or were otherwise affiliated with or sponsored by MCB. (Dominguez Decl. ¶¶ 33–35.) These real-world instances of actual consumer confusion corroborate the survey evidence and further demonstrate that confusion is not theoretical but is occurring in the marketplace.
This factor weighs strongly in MCB's favor.
##### 6. Defendant's Good Faith (or Lack Thereof)
The sixth Polaroid factor examines whether the defendant adopted its mark in good faith. "Good faith" in this context refers to whether the defendant adopted the mark with the intent to trade on the senior user's goodwill or with knowledge of the senior user's prior rights. Virgin Enters., 335 F.3d at 151. Although intent to confuse is not a prerequisite for a finding of infringement, evidence of bad faith is a "significant factor" that weighs heavily in the likelihood-of-confusion analysis. Id.
Several facts raise serious questions about Brindoval's good faith in adopting the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress.
First, Brindoval adopted the mark MERIDIAN FRESH for use on cleaning products—the identical product category in which MCB's MERIDIAN marks have been registered and actively used for over a decade. MCB's federal registrations are a matter of public record on the Principal Register, and their existence is constructive notice to Brindoval of MCB's claim of ownership. 15 U.S.C. § 1072 ("Registration of a mark on the principal register . . . shall be constructive notice of the registrant's claim of ownership thereof."). Any competent trademark search would have revealed MCB's registrations. A reasonable and prudent commercial actor, before investing in the development of a private-label product line bearing a mark that incorporates "MERIDIAN" for cleaning products, would have conducted such a search and discovered the existence of MCB's prior rights.
Second, Brindoval did not simply adopt a confusingly similar word mark; it also adopted a teal-and-white color scheme and a stylized wave device for its MERIDIAN FRESH packaging that closely resemble MCB's registered trade dress (U.S. Reg. No. 5,589,320). The parallel adoption of both the dominant word element and the visual trade dress elements—in the same product category—strains credulity as mere coincidence. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254, 258 (2d Cir. 1987) (finding bad faith where the defendant adopted a mark knowing of plaintiff's use).
Third, Brindoval's timeline is telling. Brindoval filed its trademark application on May 12, 2022, and launched MERIDIAN FRESH products just two months later, in July 2022—before the application had even published for opposition on September 6, 2022. This rapid time-to-market suggests urgency to establish a market presence under the MERIDIAN FRESH mark before any challenge could be lodged, rather than the careful and deliberate mark selection process one would expect of a responsible commercial actor.
Fourth, after receiving MCB's cease-and-desist letter on September 26, 2022, Brindoval—through Halverson McKay & Pruitt LLP—refused to cease use on October 10, 2022, and has continued selling MERIDIAN FRESH products unabated. While continued use after receipt of a cease-and-desist letter is not conclusive evidence of bad faith, it demonstrates Brindoval's willingness to proceed in the face of a well-founded trademark infringement claim.
At a minimum, Brindoval's adoption of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress was made with constructive knowledge of MCB's prior rights. The close similarity of both the word mark and the visual trade dress elements raises serious questions about whether Brindoval's intent extended beyond mere constructive knowledge to an affirmative desire to capitalize on the consumer recognition and goodwill that MCB has built in the MERIDIAN mark over more than a decade. This factor weighs in MCB's favor.
##### 7. Quality of Defendant's Product
The seventh Polaroid factor examines the quality of the defendant's products. This factor can cut in two directions. Where the defendant's products are of inferior quality, the senior user faces reputational harm because confused consumers may attribute the poor quality to the senior user. But even where the defendant's products are of comparable quality, the senior user is nonetheless harmed because it loses control over its brand reputation; consumers who have been confused as to source form expectations and associations that the senior user cannot control. Savin Corp., 391 F.3d at 461.
MCB does not concede that Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products are of equivalent quality to MCB's MERIDIAN products. MCB has no control over Brindoval's manufacturing processes, quality assurance protocols, ingredient sourcing, or product formulations. To the extent that consumers confused about the source of MERIDIAN FRESH products encounter a product of different quality—whether higher or lower—MCB's brand reputation is at risk in ways that MCB cannot monitor, manage, or mitigate.
This factor is, at a minimum, neutral, and may favor MCB.
##### 8. Sophistication of Consumers
The eighth and final Polaroid factor considers the degree of sophistication exercised by the relevant consumers in making purchasing decisions. Where consumers exercise a low degree of care—as is typical for low-cost, frequently purchased consumer goods—the risk of confusion is heightened. Savin Corp., 391 F.3d at 461–62.
Household cleaning products are quintessential low-cost, high-frequency consumer purchases. An all-purpose spray or glass cleaner typically retails for a few dollars. Consumers purchase these products regularly—often weekly or biweekly—and make purchasing decisions quickly, frequently while navigating crowded retail aisles alongside dozens of competing products. The purchasing environment is not one that invites or rewards careful, deliberative comparison shopping. Consumers do not typically conduct pre-purchase research, read detailed product labels, or investigate the corporate identity of the manufacturer before selecting a bottle of cleaning spray from a shelf.
The low cost, high purchase frequency, and impulse-purchase nature of household cleaning products mean that the relevant consumers exercise a relatively low degree of care in selecting among competing products. This lower degree of consumer sophistication amplifies the likelihood that a consumer encountering a product labeled "MERIDIAN FRESH" in a teal-and-white package with a wave device will assume—incorrectly—that the product comes from the same source as the MERIDIAN CLEAN products with which the consumer is already familiar.
This factor weighs in MCB's favor.
C. Balancing of the *Polaroid* Factors. The Polaroid analysis is a holistic balancing test; no single factor is determinative. Polaroid, 287 F.2d at 495. Here, however, the balancing is not a close call. At least six of the eight Polaroid factors weigh in MCB's favor, and several do so strongly:
• Strength of MCB's mark: The MERIDIAN mark is inherently distinctive and has acquired substantial commercial strength through over eleven years of continuous use, nearly $100 million in annual cleaning-line revenue, and cumulative advertising expenditures of $47.2 million. Strongly favors MCB.
• Similarity of the marks: MERIDIAN FRESH incorporates the entirety of MCB's MERIDIAN mark—the dominant, distinctive element—and is accompanied by confusingly similar trade dress. Strongly favors MCB.
• Proximity of the products: The parties sell identical or nearly identical products—household cleaning preparations—in the same International Class and through overlapping distribution channels. Decisively favors MCB.
• Bridging the gap: There is no gap to bridge; the products are in the same market. Favors MCB or is neutral.
• Actual confusion: A 31.4% net confusion rate, supported by anecdotal evidence of real-world consumer confusion, constitutes powerful evidence. Strongly favors MCB.
• Defendant's good faith: Brindoval adopted a confusingly similar mark and trade dress with at least constructive knowledge of MCB's prior rights. Favors MCB.
• Quality of defendant's product: MCB loses control over its brand reputation regardless of the quality of Brindoval's products. Neutral or favors MCB.
• Sophistication of consumers: Household cleaning products are low-cost, high-frequency purchases made with minimal consumer care. Favors MCB.
The overwhelming weight of the Polaroid factors establishes a clear likelihood of confusion between MCB's MERIDIAN marks and Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress. MCB has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its claims for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) and for false designation of origin and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
III. MCB WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM ABSENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
In trademark cases, a showing of likelihood of confusion gives rise to a presumption of irreparable harm. Brennan's, Inc. v. Brennan's Rest., L.L.C., 360 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2004); Lobo Enters., Inc. v. Tunnel, Inc., 822 F.2d 331, 333 (2d Cir. 1987). The rationale is straightforward: trademark infringement inflicts harm on the senior user's goodwill, brand reputation, and consumer relationships that is inherently difficult—if not impossible—to quantify in monetary terms. Money damages cannot restore consumer perceptions once they have been distorted by confusion in the marketplace.
MCB acknowledges that the Supreme Court's decisions in Northgate Group v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and the Second Circuit's decision in Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010), have prompted careful scrutiny of whether irreparable harm may be "presumed" without more. But even under the most demanding reading of Salinger, MCB has amply demonstrated that it is "likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction." Id. at 80. The nature of the irreparable harm is manifest:
Loss of control over brand reputation and goodwill. MCB has invested more than a decade and $47.2 million in building the MERIDIAN brand into a commercially strong and widely recognized mark in the household cleaning category. That brand equity—the consumer recognition, trust, and loyalty associated with the MERIDIAN mark—is one of MCB's most valuable business assets, reflected in the $625 million acquisition price paid by Waypoint Capital Partners in 2019. When consumers encounter Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products and mistakenly believe them to be manufactured by, affiliated with, or sponsored by MCB, MCB loses control over the quality, character, and reputation of the products bearing its mark in the minds of those consumers. This loss of control is a quintessential form of irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by an award of damages after the fact.
Ongoing consumer confusion. The 31.4% net confusion rate documented by Dr. Furman's survey means that approximately one in three consumers exposed to Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH packaging is likely to be confused as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the product. This is not a marginal or borderline level of confusion—it is substantial, and it is ongoing. With every unit of MERIDIAN FRESH product sold, with every new consumer exposed to the confusing mark and trade dress, the harm to MCB's goodwill compounds. Confusion, once created, is difficult to undo; even if MCB ultimately prevails at trial and obtains a permanent injunction, the confusion sown in the interim cannot easily be erased from consumer consciousness.
Erosion of the distinctiveness of the MERIDIAN mark. The continued use of MERIDIAN FRESH in the marketplace erodes the distinctiveness of MCB's MERIDIAN mark by creating a second association for "MERIDIAN" in connection with cleaning products. Over time, the presence of a competing MERIDIAN-formative mark dilutes the strong, singular association between "MERIDIAN" and MCB's products that MCB has worked over eleven years to build. This erosion of distinctiveness diminishes the mark's value as a source identifier and weakens its ability to serve the trademark function of distinguishing MCB's goods from those of others.
The harm is not compensable by money damages. The injuries described above—loss of control over brand reputation, ongoing consumer confusion, and erosion of mark distinctiveness—are by their nature unquantifiable. While MCB may be able to prove certain economic losses at trial (e.g., lost sales, diverted profits), the full extent of the injury to MCB's brand equity, consumer relationships, and market position cannot be reduced to a dollar figure. "The most corrosive and irreparable harm caused by trademark infringement is the inability of the victim to control the nature and quality of the defendant's goods." Gucci Am., Inc. v. Daffy's, Inc., 354 F.3d 228, 237 (3d Cir. 2003). That is precisely the harm MCB faces here.
Brindoval's continued sales aggravate the harm daily. Brindoval's MERIDIAN FRESH products generated approximately $6.8 million in gross revenue in just five months (July through November 2022), with projected annualized revenue of approximately $16.3 million. These figures indicate rapidly growing market penetration of the infringing mark and trade dress. Every day that the injunction is delayed is a day in which additional consumers are exposed to the confusing mark, additional confusion is created, and additional harm is inflicted on MCB's brand. The ongoing and escalating nature of the harm underscores the urgency of preliminary relief.
Actual consumer confusion is already occurring. The Declaration of Rachel Dominguez attests to reports from MCB's customer service team of consumers who have contacted MCB in the mistaken belief that MERIDIAN FRESH products were manufactured by or affiliated with MCB. (Dominguez Decl. ¶¶ 33–35.) These are not hypothetical concerns; they are documented instances of real consumers being deceived in the real marketplace. Every such incident represents a consumer whose perception of MCB's brand has been distorted by Brindoval's infringement—a harm that no damages award can fully remediate.
For all of these reasons, MCB has established that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the entry of a preliminary injunction. This element is satisfied.
IV. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS TIPS DECIDEDLY IN MCB'S FAVOR
The third element of the preliminary injunction standard requires the Court to weigh the respective hardships to the parties. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Here, the balance tips decidedly in MCB's favor.
Hardship to MCB absent an injunction. If the Court declines to enjoin Brindoval's use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress, MCB will continue to suffer the erosion of a brand that it has built over eleven years, supported by $47.2 million in advertising investment and $94.5 million in annual cleaning-line revenue. Consumer confusion at a 31.4% rate will persist and likely intensify as Brindoval continues to expand its MERIDIAN FRESH product offerings and distribution. The goodwill and brand equity that MCB has painstakingly accumulated will continue to be undermined by a mark and trade dress that MCB did not authorize and cannot control. This harm is ongoing, compounding, and—as discussed above—irreparable. Moreover, any delay in granting relief increases the difficulty of restoring the status quo ante; the longer MERIDIAN FRESH products remain in the marketplace, the more deeply the confusing association will become embedded in consumer consciousness.
Hardship to Brindoval if an injunction is granted. If the Court grants the requested injunction, Brindoval will be required to cease use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and the associated confusingly similar trade dress on its household cleaning products during the pendency of this action. MCB does not minimize the fact that this will entail certain costs and inconveniences for Brindoval, including the costs of rebranding its private-label cleaning line, recalling or relabeling existing inventory, and the temporary loss of sales in a product line that has generated $6.8 million in its first five months. However, several factors significantly mitigate the hardship to Brindoval:
First, Brindoval is a $2.1 billion annual revenue company. The MERIDIAN FRESH cleaning line—with projected annualized revenue of approximately $16.3 million—represents less than 0.8% of Brindoval's total revenue. While any business disruption is inconvenient, the MERIDIAN FRESH line is a small fraction of Brindoval's overall operations. The injunction will not impair Brindoval's ability to conduct its core business.
Second, the injunction does not prevent Brindoval from selling cleaning products. Brindoval is free to continue offering private-label household cleaning products under a non-infringing mark and trade dress. The injunction requires only that Brindoval cease use of the specific mark and trade dress that are confusingly similar to MCB's protected marks.
Third, Brindoval launched the MERIDIAN FRESH line only in July 2022—approximately four months before the filing of this motion. The line is in its infancy. Brindoval has not yet invested the kind of sustained, multi-year brand-building effort that would make a transition to a new mark unduly burdensome. The sunk costs are modest relative to Brindoval's size and resources.
Fourth, Brindoval proceeded to market with the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress despite constructive notice—through the public record of MCB's federal registrations—of MCB's prior rights. A party that "adopt[s] a mark with knowledge of another's prior rights" cannot be heard to complain of hardship when enjoined from continued use of that mark. See Virgin Enters., 335 F.3d at 151.
When the hardship to MCB—the ongoing, irreparable erosion of a well-established brand supported by eleven years of investment and generating nearly $100 million in annual revenue—is weighed against the comparatively modest hardship to Brindoval—the cost of rebranding a four-month-old private-label line that represents less than one percent of its revenue—the balance tips decidedly and unambiguously in MCB's favor. This element is satisfied.
V. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The fourth and final element of the preliminary injunction standard requires the Court to consider whether the requested relief serves the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. In trademark cases, the public interest analysis is straightforward: the public has a strong and abiding interest in being free from confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of products in the marketplace.
Trademark law exists not merely to protect the private rights of mark owners, but to protect the consuming public from deception and to preserve the integrity of the marketplace as a system of commercial communication. See Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 20, cmt. b (Am. L. Inst. 1995) ("The law of trademarks protects both the trademark owner and the consuming public."). When a junior user employs a mark that causes consumers to be confused about the source of goods, the resulting harm extends beyond the senior user to the public itself—consumers who are misled into purchasing goods they did not intend to purchase, or into forming associations and expectations that are unfounded.
Here, the evidence demonstrates that Brindoval's use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and trade dress causes a 31.4% net rate of consumer confusion. Allowing Brindoval to continue marketing products under a mark and trade dress that deceive roughly one in three consumers is contrary to the public interest in truthful commercial communications and informed consumer choice.
Enjoining Brindoval's use of the confusing mark and trade dress serves the public interest by eliminating a significant source of marketplace confusion, protecting consumers from deception regarding the source and sponsorship of household cleaning products, and preserving the integrity of the trademark system upon which consumers and businesses alike depend. This factor favors granting the injunction.
VI. THE SCOPE OF THE REQUESTED INJUNCTION IS APPROPRIATE
Having demonstrated that all four elements of the preliminary injunction standard are satisfied, MCB respectfully requests that the Court enter an order of the following scope:
(a) Enjoining the use of the MERIDIAN FRESH mark. The order should enjoin Brindoval Home Goods Inc., its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with Brindoval who receive actual notice of the order, from using the mark "MERIDIAN FRESH" or any other mark confusingly similar to MCB's MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN CLEAN, or MERIDIAN stylized logo with wave device marks, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, distribution, offer for sale, or sale of household cleaning products or any goods in International Class 3.
(b) Enjoining the use of the confusingly similar trade dress. The order should enjoin Brindoval from using the teal-and-white color scheme and stylized wave device trade dress, or any trade dress confusingly similar thereto, on any household cleaning products during the pendency of this action.
(c) Recall and relabeling of existing inventory. The order should require Brindoval to recall or relabel all existing inventory of products bearing the MERIDIAN FRESH mark and the enjoined trade dress within thirty (30) days of entry of the order.
(d) Removal from retail and e-commerce. The order should require Brindoval to remove all M