IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—5th Cir.: $4.7 million judgment for Trojan Battery against golf-cart sellers upheld; permanent injunction vacated, (May 12, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The district court correctly found that the accused branding infringed Trojan Battery’s TROJAN® marks but erred in granting a permanent injunction barring uses of “Trojan” outside the golf-cart industry.

A golf-cart seller infringed Trojan Battery Company’s well-known TROJAN® trademarks by marketing “TROJAN-EV” golf carts in a manner likely to make consumers believe the products were affiliated with the battery manufacturer, the Fifth Circuit held, affirming a judgment imposing more than $4.7 million in disgorgement damages. The appellate court concluded that the defendants intentionally traded on the battery maker’s goodwill in the golf-cart industry and used highly similar branding in overlapping markets. However, the court vacated a permanent injunction because it prohibited all uses of the word “Trojan,” including in unrelated industries where consumer confusion was unlikely (Trojan Battery Company, L.L.C. v. Golf Carts of Cypress, L.L.C., No. 25-20243 (5th Cir. May 8, 2026)).

Background. Trojan Battery, a California-based battery manufacturer founded in 1925, manufactures and sells deep-cycle batteries under its TROJAN® brand for golf carts and utility vehicles. The company controls a substantial share of the golf-cart battery market and sells hundreds of millions of dollars of batteries annually. The defendants, Golf Carts of Cypress and Trojan EV, are Texas golf-cart businesses owned by Federico Nell. Golf Carts of Cypress initially sold used golf carts, while Trojan EV later marketed and sold new golf carts under the “Trojan-EV” brand through dealer networks and online promotion.

The dispute centered on Trojan Battery’s TROJAN® marks, including “TROJAN” used for electric storage batteries; “TROJAN BATTERY SALES” covering retail and wholesale battery services; and a stylized TROJAN logo used for electric storage batteries and lithium-ion batteries. Trojan EV used a “TROJAN-EV” mark featuring a Spartan-style helmet logo in connection with its golf carts.

The conflict arose after golf-cart dealer Bill Malloy visited Trojan EV’s website and initially believed the company was associated with Trojan Battery. Malloy later informed Trojan Battery representatives that he “though[t] this might be you guys for a minute.” Trojan Battery sent a cease-and-desist letter in July 2021, asserting that the defendants’ use of “TROJAN-EV” caused consumer confusion and infringed its marks. After the defendants refused to stop using the branding, Trojan Battery filed suit in the Southern District of Texas in September 2021 for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Texas common law. Following a four-day bench trial, the district court found the defendants liable, awarded disgorgement exceeding $4.7 million, and entered a permanent injunction. The defendants appealed the liability findings, disgorgement award, and scope of the injunction.

Likelihood of confusion. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act. The Fifth Circuit analyzed the familiar “digits of confusion” test and held that most factors favored Trojan Battery. The court emphasized the commercial strength of the TROJAN® marks in the golf-cart battery industry, noting that the brand possessed dominant market recognition developed through decades of use and extensive sales. Citing Am. Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 518 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2008), the court reiterated that stronger marks receive broader protection because consumers are more likely to associate them with a single source.

The Fifth Circuit also agreed that the parties’ marks were highly similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression because both prominently featured the word “TROJAN” in connection with golf-related products marketed to overlapping consumers. The court relied on Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2009), which instructed courts to focus on the dominant features of competing marks and evaluate whether consumers could believe the products shared a common origin or association. The appellate court determined that consumers encountering “TROJAN-EV” golf carts could reasonably believe the products were affiliated with Trojan Battery because the parties used similar marketing channels and targeted the same market segment.

Willful infringement. The court further held that the district court properly found the defendants acted with intent to capitalize on Trojan Battery’s goodwill. The appellate court gave substantial deference to the district court’s credibility findings concerning Federico Nell’s testimony that he supposedly did not know about Trojan Battery before launching Trojan EV. The district court had pointed to evidence showing that Golf Carts of Cypress sold golf carts powered by TROJAN® batteries and promoted battery-replacement services before the TROJAN-EV brand launched. The appellate court concluded that the record supported an inference of willful infringement and intent to trade on Trojan Battery’s reputation.

Actual confusion. Although the Fifth Circuit found that the district court erred in treating evidence of actual confusion as compelling, the appellate court held that the error did not alter the overall outcome because the remaining confusion factors overwhelmingly favored Trojan Battery. The appellate court observed that only a handful of confusion incidents existed despite millions of dollars in annual sales, rendering the evidence insufficient under Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1980). Nevertheless, the court explained that proof of actual confusion was not required where the remaining confusion factors strongly established likely consumer confusion.

Disgorgement award. Turning to remedies, the Fifth Circuit upheld the disgorgement award under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The court held that the district court properly concluded disgorgement was equitable because the infringement was willful, likely diverted sales, and justified deterrence. Citing Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203 (1942), the court explained that once a trademark owner proved the defendants’ sales, the burden shifted to the defendants to prove which profits were not attributable to infringement. The defendants failed to establish deductions or prove that the TROJAN-EV branding had no commercial value in generating sales.

Permanent injunction. Finally, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an overbroad permanent injunction. The injunction prohibited the defendants from using “TROJAN” in connection with any goods or services, regardless of industry. The appellate court held that the injunction exceeded what was necessary to prevent confusion because the likelihood of confusion arose specifically within the golf-cart and golf-battery markets. The court observed that the word “Trojan” also appeared in unrelated, well-known commercial contexts, including Trojan condoms and the University of Southern California mascot, demonstrating that the broad marketplace use of the term did not inevitably create confusion. The appellate court directed the district court to narrow the injunction to products and services within the golf-cart and golf-battery industries.

The Case is No. 25-20243.

Judge: Stewart, C.

Attorneys: Tyler Robert Marandola (Duane Morris, L.L.P.) for Trojan Battery Co. L.L.C. Anthony Todd Golz (Cokinos Young, P.C.) for Golf Carts of Cypress, L.L.C.

Companies: Trojan Battery Co. L.L.C.; Golf Carts of Cypress, L.L.C.

Cases: Trademark LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews GCNNews