IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—11th Cir.: Cancellation of electric scooter maker’s ‘WOLF WARRIOR’ trademark affirmed, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Evidence of actual consumer confusion, combined with the visual similarity of the parties’ marks and related scooter products, supported infringement and a permanent injunction against use of the “Wolf” name.

A permanent injunction barring a Chinese electric scooter manufacturer and its distributors from using “Wolf” in connection with their scooters was properly entered because the undisputed evidence established a likelihood of confusion with a gas-powered scooter manufacturer’s earlier registered WOLF trademark, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has found in a nonprecedential decision. Affirming summary judgment for Hammer Brand LLC, doing business as Wolf Brand Scooters, the court also upheld cancellation of Ningbo Kaabo Technology Co. Ltd.’s WOLF WARRIOR federal trademark registration. Although two of the eight likelihood-of-confusion factors favored Kaabo, several instances in which consumers contacted Hammer or its dealers about Kaabo’s electric scooters provided particularly strong evidence of actual confusion (Hammer Brand, LLC v. Voro, Inc., No. 24-14209 (11th Cir. Sep. 1, 2026)).

Scooter brands. Hammer has sold gas-powered scooters under the WOLF brand since 2013 and obtained federal registration of the mark in 2016. Kaabo manufactures electric kick scooters under the WOLF WARRIOR and WOLF KING names and distributes them in the United States through companies including Voro Inc. and Leitmotif Services LLC, doing business as Fluidfreeride. Kaabo began U.S. sales in 2022 and registered WOLF WARRIOR with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2023.

That year, Hammer began receiving inquiries about electric WOLF scooters, although it did not manufacture them. Its logistics manager received six calls, including one concerning a WOLF KING model. Hammer dealers subsequently reported similar inquiries, and its general manager received a letter from an attorney seeking an inspection of a defective Kaabo WOLF KING scooter.

Hammer sued Kaabo and its distributors under the Lanham Act, seeking an injunction and cancellation of the WOLF WARRIOR registration. It separately asserted a fraudulent-registration claim seeking damages. The federal district court in Tampa, Florida, granted Hammer summary judgment on infringement, permanently enjoined the challenged use, and canceled Kaabo’s registration. It denied summary judgment on the fraudulent-registration claim, which remained pending.

Likelihood of confusion. Kaabo did not dispute Hammer’s ownership of a valid trademark with priority, leaving likelihood of consumer confusion as the central infringement question. The Eleventh Circuit considered eight factors: strength of the mark; similarity of the marks; similarity of the products; trade channels and customers; advertising; infringer intent; actual confusion; and consumer sophistication. Those factors were to be weighed according to their significance rather than mechanically counted, the court explained, citing FCOA LLC v. Foremost Title & Escrow Services LLC, 57 F.4th 939 (11th Cir. 2023).

The strength factor favored Kaabo despite WOLF's conceptual strength. WOLF was arbitrary as applied to scooters because the term bore no relationship to the products. But Hammer presented no evidence that its promotional efforts had generated marketplace recognition, leaving it without evidence of the mark’s commercial strength.

The similarity factor favored Hammer. The marks employed nearly identical font and styling, shared the word “Wolf,” and were displayed similarly on the scooters. Kaabo argued that adding “Warrior” and “King” substantially changed their meanings, but the court disagreed. Indeed, because Hammer used descriptors for models such as WOLF RX-50 and WOLF BLAZE, consumers could understand WOLF WARRIOR or WOLF KING as another Hammer model.

Related products and markets. Differences between the scooters did not create a triable issue. Hammer sold seated, gas-powered scooters, while Kaabo sold standing, electric kick scooters. But the relevant inquiry was whether the products were sufficiently related that consumers could believe they originated from the same producer. Both were motorized scooters, and Hammer's lack of interest in selling electric scooters did not affect consumers’ perceptions.

The parties also reached overlapping consumers through similar channels. Both relied on dealers and distributors selling online and through physical locations, and both used online and social media advertising. Kaabo pointed to price differences between some models, but there was no evidence that those differences created distinct consumer markets.

Actual confusion. Actual confusion, the most important factor, strongly supported Hammer. The record contained more than a dozen instances in which customers or others associated Kaabo's products with Hammer. Customers contacted Hammer and its dealers looking for electric WOLF scooters, with several specifically asking about WOLF KING models. One prospective customer, after being told that a dealer did not know about a WOLF KING GTR, responded by pointing out that the business was a “Wolf dealer.”

The attorney's letter concerning a fire allegedly caused by a Kaabo WOLF KING GT Pro scooter provided additional evidence. Although non-consumer confusion carried less weight, the attorney's contact with Hammer despite identifying the scooter as a Kaabo product supported an inference of confusion.

The court also rejected Kaabo's argument that the customer inquiries were inadmissible hearsay. Questions asking whether Hammer carried particular models were nonassertive statements incapable of being true or false, according to the court. To the extent they contained assertive content, they were introduced to show confusion, not to prove the truth of the callers’ statements.

Consumer sophistication also favored Hammer. Kaabo argued that purchasers of scooters costing thousands of dollars would exercise greater care but offered no summary-judgment evidence supporting that assertion.

Only the strength and intent factors ultimately favored Kaabo. On intent, Kaabo's president testified that the company believed its mark differed sufficiently from Hammer's and expected the USPTO to reject its application if infringement existed. A jury could credit that testimony, preventing the factor from supporting Hammer.

Injunction proper. Weighing the factors together, the Eleventh Circuit held that the evidence established a likelihood of confusion as a matter of law. The actual-confusion evidence was particularly significant, while the visual similarity of the marks, related products, overlapping sales channels and advertising, and consumer-sophistication evidence reinforced the infringement finding.

The two factors favoring Kaabo did not require a trial because likelihood of confusion may be resolved on summary judgment even when individual factors point in opposing directions. Moreover, the intent evidence was not wholly favorable to Kaabo: evidence showed it sought registration of WOLF KING while the litigation was pending.

Once infringement was established, Section 34(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1116(a), supplied a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm. Kaabo failed to rebut that presumption and challenged no other requirement for permanent injunctive relief. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in entering the injunction.

Registration canceled. The appeals court also upheld cancellation of the WOLF WARRIOR registration despite Hammer's fraudulent-registration claim remaining unresolved. Although the absence of a final judgment ordinarily would prevent immediate review of the cancellation order, the Eleventh Circuit had jurisdiction over the injunction under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1) and exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction because the issues were “inextricably intertwined.”

The infringement finding supplied valid grounds for canceling the registration. Because reviewing the injunction necessarily required resolving the same infringement issue underlying cancellation, the court affirmed both the permanent injunction and the cancellation. Hammer's fraudulent-registration damages claim remains pending in the district court.

The Case is No. 24-14209.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Ross M. Babbitt (Ross M. Babbitt Co., LPA) for Hammer Brand, LLC. Richard E. Fee (Fee & Jeffries, PA) for Voro, Inc.

Companies: Hammer Brand, LLC; Voro, Inc.

Cases: Trademark AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews GCNNews