HealthOne of Denver, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.
2012 WL 1949008, 872 F.Supp.2d 1154, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74384 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When assessing trademark infringement, a court will deny summary judgment on the likelihood of confusion if sufficient evidence exists across a multi-factor test, particularly regarding mark similarity, relatedness of services, and conflicting expert testimony on actual confusion; however, a Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim requires a showing of specific misrepresentations beyond mere use of a confusing mark in general advertising.
Facts:
- HealthONE, founded in 1983, provides health care services, including operating seven hospitals and over sixty outpatient facilities in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region under the 'HealthONE' mark.
- HealthONE spends $7-10 million annually on marketing, serves approximately 800,000 patients per year, and has several federally registered 'HEALTHONE' trademarks, some of which have been in continuous use for over five years.
- UnitedHealth Group, a diversified insurance and services company, undertook a rebranding initiative in mid-2007 to unify its individual insurance products under a single brand name.
- In September 2008, UnitedHealth launched its individual insurance products under the 'UnitedHealthOne' mark, which it selected after market testing and in alignment with industry naming conventions.
- UnitedHealth, through its Optum subsidiaries, also owns and operates medical groups, clinics, urgent care centers, and provides nursing home, palliative, and hospice services, including in Colorado.
- On August 14, 2008, HealthONE sent UnitedHealth a cease and desist letter asserting that the 'UNITEDHEALTHONE' name would likely cause consumer confusion and demanded its withdrawal.
- Several anecdotal instances of alleged consumer confusion occurred, including a former HealthONE patient complaining about UnitedHealthOne insurance solicitations and a HealthONE employee's husband asking if UnitedHealth had acquired HealthONE after seeing an advertisement.
- Both HealthONE and UnitedHealth market their services through similar media (internet, newspaper, television, radio, direct mail) and target similar customers (individuals needing health care services or health insurance).
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs HealthONE of Denver, Inc. and HCA-HealthONE LLC filed their Verified Complaint and Jury Demand in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 9, 2010.
- The Complaint asserted claims of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices under Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition.
- Defendant United-Health Group Incorporated filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 6, 2012, arguing that HealthONE's claims failed as a matter of law due to insufficient evidence of likelihood of confusion and that the CCPA claim also failed as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a genuine issue of material fact exist as to the likelihood of consumer confusion between HealthONE's 'HEALTHONE' marks and UnitedHealth's 'UNITEDHEALTHONE' mark, thereby precluding summary judgment on claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and common law? 2. Does UnitedHealth's nationwide advertising using the 'UNITEDHEALTHONE' mark, absent evidence of specific misrepresentations, satisfy the 'significant public impact' requirement for a claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiley Y. Daniel, Chief Judge
1. Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the likelihood of consumer confusion, thus precluding summary judgment on HealthONE's trademark infringement and unfair competition claims. The court applied the six-factor likelihood of confusion test, giving significant weight to the similarity of the marks and evidence of actual confusion. Regarding mark similarity, the court found that a reasonable juror could conclude the marks are confusingly similar, as 'healthone' is the dominant portion, and HealthONE's standard character marks are not limited to specific visual presentations; adding 'United' to 'HealthONE' could suggest affiliation rather than distinction, as per McCarthy on Trademarks. While HealthONE's mark was deemed conceptually weak due to its descriptive nature, its commercial strength was found to be strong due to extensive advertising, vigorous policing efforts, and significant marketplace recognition, resulting in this factor being neutral. The court found no evidence that UnitedHealth adopted its mark with the intent to derive benefit from HealthONE’s reputation, as its rebranding process was thorough and aligned with industry practices, weighing this factor against confusion. However, the services were deemed similar under the 'related goods doctrine,' as UnitedHealth's subsidiaries directly provide healthcare services, and its marketing blurred the lines between insurance and care; both parties also utilized similar marketing channels and targeted identical customers, weighing this factor in favor of confusion. The court concluded that consumers would exercise a higher degree of care when purchasing health insurance, weighing against confusion. Finally, on actual confusion, the court found HealthONE presented sufficient evidence through six anecdotal incidents and, critically, through its expert's survey results showing net confusion levels between 11.3% and 19.1%, exceeding the common 10% threshold. The court held that this 'battle of the experts' on survey methodology and results is a matter for the jury to resolve. Balancing these factors, with significant weight given to mark similarity, service relatedness, and actual confusion, the court found a genuine issue of material fact for trial. 2. No, summary judgment is granted on HealthONE's Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) claim because HealthONE failed to present evidence of actual misrepresentations or false/deceptive advertising by UnitedHealth. The court reasoned that merely using a mark that is found likely to cause confusion in general advertising, without specific evidence of misleading statements or adverse public impact, is insufficient to establish a CCPA violation. Finding a likelihood of confusion for trademark purposes does not automatically extend to redress under the CCPA.
Analysis:
This case provides a detailed application of the multi-factor likelihood of confusion test in trademark infringement, highlighting the difficulty of resolving such issues on summary judgment when expert opinions conflict. It underscores that conceptual weakness of a mark does not negate its commercial strength, particularly with diligent policing and substantial investment. Furthermore, the decision reinforces the 'related goods doctrine,' emphasizing that even non-competing services can be deemed related if consumers could perceive an affiliation, especially when marketing blurs distinctions between them. Lastly, it clarifies that establishing a likelihood of confusion for trademark infringement does not automatically satisfy the 'significant public impact' requirement for consumer protection claims, which demand evidence of actual misrepresentation or deceptive advertising.
