IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Minn.: Court grants summary judgment on trademark priority in Trellis dispute, (Jun 4, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

Summary judgment granted where there was no genuine dispute of material fact on priority, and plaintiff’s use of the identical mark was likely to cause confusion.

A federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Trellis Co., concluding that it established priority in the “Trellis” mark through bona fide use in commerce before its competitor applied for registration. The court determined there was no genuine dispute of material fact on priority and further held that the plaintiff’s use of the identical mark was likely to cause confusion under the Lanham Act and related state law. The court permanently enjoined the plaintiff’s use of the mark in Minnesota but declined to award disgorgement, finding injunctive relief sufficient under equitable principles (Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging, Inc. v. Trellis Co., No. 0:24-cv-01854-DWF-SGE (D. Minn. Jun. 2, 2026)).

Background. Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging, Inc. (Metropolitan) was a non-profit organization providing social services to seniors and their caregivers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Trellis Co. (Trellis) was a non-profit developer and manager of affordable housing, also operating in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and also serving seniors. Both companies, around 2018-2019, engaged in rebranding efforts which resulted in both using the trade name TRELLIS with associated logos. Metropolitan filed an intent-to-use trademark application with the USPTO, which Trellis opposed. Metropolitan then filed suit for declaratory judgment of priority and non-infringement. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) suspended the opposition proceeding in view of this litigation. Trellis moved to dismiss or stay and Metropolitan moved for summary judgment.

Priority. The court’s analysis focused first on priority, emphasizing that trademark rights arise from actual use in commerce rather than mere adoption. Applying the Lanham Act definition, the court examined whether the defendant’s activities prior to October 27, 2020 constituted bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade.

The court found “significant evidence” of qualifying use. This evidence included Trellis-branded tenant communications sent in September and October 2020, employee use of branded clothing while performing job duties, and a website launched in August 2020 advertising properties and rental services. The defendant also installed branded signage at property offices, distributed business materials bearing the mark, and completed rental transactions with more than 70 new tenants during the relevant period.

On that record, the court concluded that the defendant’s use went beyond preparatory steps and reflected active provision and advertising of services under the mark. Rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments regarding limited market penetration and de minimis use, the court held that such analysis was unnecessary where both parties used the same mark in the same market. The court therefore declared that the defendant had priority and granted summary judgment on the competing declaratory judgment claims.

Likelihood of confusion. Having determined priority, the court addressed the remaining claims under the likelihood-of-confusion framework. Applying Eighth Circuit precedent, the court evaluated the six SquirtCo factors and concluded that no reasonable factfinder could find an absence of confusion.

The court found the Trellis mark both conceptually and commercially strong, noting its suggestive nature and evidence of recognition and business activity. It further emphasized that the parties’ marks were identical and used within the same geographic area. Although the parties’ services were not identical, the court determined they were sufficiently related—particularly in the housing context—to place them in close competitive proximity.

The court also found evidence supporting an inference of intent, citing the plaintiff’s knowledge of the defendant’s use of the mark prior to adopting and seeking to register it. It identified multiple instances of actual confusion, including a 2025 email in which a third party mistakenly contacted the plaintiff regarding a tenant issue at a defendant-owned property.

Balancing the factors, the court concluded the record compelled a finding of likely confusion and entered judgment for the defendant on all remaining federal and state law claims.

Permanent injunction granted. Turning to remedies, the court granted permanent injunctive relief, concluding that the defendant had succeeded on the merits and that the remaining equitable factors favored an injunction. The injunction prohibits the plaintiff and related parties from using the Trellis mark or any similar variation in connection with its services in Minnesota.

However, the court declined to award disgorgement of profits. While acknowledging that such relief is available under the Lanham Act, the court determined that injunctive relief alone was sufficient to address the harm and deter future infringement. The court also found that it was unclear whether the plaintiff had been unjustly enriched and noted the potential adverse impact disgorgement could have on the nonprofit’s operations.

The Case is No. 0:24-cv-01854-DWF-SGE.

Judge: Frank, D.

Attorneys: Andrew Stephen Dosdall (Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP) for Metropolitan Area Agency On Aging, Inc. Barbara Michelle Alvey (Husch Blackwell LLP) for Trellis Co.

Companies: Metropolitan Area Agency On Aging, Inc.; Trellis Co.

Cases: Trademark MinnesotaNews