Advertisement

May 20, 2013

Southeast Clinical Nutrition Centers, Inc. Sues Mayo Foundation over Diet-Related Service Marks

On February 27, 2013, Tucker, Georgia-based Southeast Clinical Nutrition Centers, Inc. (“Southeast”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, against the Mayo Foundation for Education and Research(“Mayo Foundation”), alleging that the Mayo Foundation infringed Southeast’s service marks related to dieting.

Southeast is the owner identified on U.S. Service Mark Registrations Nos. 3,993,944 and 3,993,945 (“the “’944 Registration” and “’945 Registration,” respectively), for the marks “Don’t diet. Live IT!” and “Don’t diet. Lose IT!,” respectively, for “consulting services in the fields of health and nutrition; counseling services in the fields of health, nutrition and lifestyle wellness; food nutrition consultation; nutrition counseling.”   The ’944 Registration recites a date of first use in commerce of July 31, 2007 for “Don’t diet. Live IT!,” and the ’945 Registration recites a date of first use in commerce of August 31, 2010 for “Don’t diet. Lose IT!”

In addition to identifying those registered marks, the complaint alleges common law rights to the marks “Lose It!” and “Live It!”

Southeast alleges that the Mayo Foundation published a book titled The Mayo Clinic Diet, and that two of the three main sections in that book are called “Part 1. Lose It!,” and “Part 2. Live It!,” as presented in Exhibit 8 to the complaint.  In that book, Mayo Foundation uses both terms, Southeast contends, to describe portions of the Mayo Foundation’s dieting program.  Southeast’s complaint identifies a Mayo Foundation website that describes The Mayo Clinic Diet as having “two main parts”: (1) Lose It!; and (2) Live It!

Southeast also alleges that the Mayo Foundation published books titled The Mayo Clinic Diabetes Dietand The Mayo Clinic Diabetes Journal, and that the former prominently features and uses the terms “Lose It!” and “Live It!” in connection with the Mayo Diabetes Program, in a manner similar to that used in The Mayo Clinic Diet.  The complaint refers to additional exhibits regarding such usages.

Referring to Exhibit 14 to the Complaint, Southeast alleges that it put Mayo Foundation on formal notice of the registered marks in a letter dated January 4, 2013.  The letter of that exhibit includes the statement: “At this time, my client would like to explore whether Mayo Clinic can work, together, with it on a mutually beneficial relationship, whereby any potential issues can be avoided.”  The letter concluded with a request to contact Southeast’s counsel in two weeks.  The complaint does not state whether Mayo Foundation ever responded to that letter, but alleges that Mayo Foundation continues to use the contested marks despite that letter.

The complaint recites counts for infringement of federally-registered marks, false designation of origin and dilution under the Lanham Act (regarding the claimed common-law marks “Lose It!” and “Live It!”), and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition as to all asserted marks. Southeast seeks both injunctive and monetary relief, including recovery of attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

The case is Southeast Clinical Nutrition Centers, Inc. v. Mayo Foundation for Education and Research, No. 1:13-cv-0626-AT, filed 02/27/13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, assigned to U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg.

Copyright © 2013 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Michael's career began in 1990, and for its first nine years included the preparation and prosecution of patent applications as well as intellectual property and business tort litigation. Michael has practiced intellectual property litigation exclusively since 1999. His patent litigation experience includes Markman (patent claim interpretation) proceedings, trials, and motion practice. A significant portion of his experience also includes trademark infringement litigation.

(404) 962-7520

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.