IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D. Nev.: Including images of mark and inferring comparison is sufficient for pleading, (Oct 29, 2026)

By Sherri M. Schroeder, J.D.

The court also weighed in on anti-SLAPP statutes, concluding that the use of logos and trademarks does not transform into good-faith communications related to the public interest simply because the target market is government employees.

The federal district court in Nevada has issued an opinion in a case that clarifies both the sufficiency of pleadings in a trademark-infringement claim and application of Nevada's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute in such a proceeding. Nuclear Care Partners, LLC (NCP) sued Atomic Legacy Home Health, LLC and Atomic Home Health, LLC (Atomic) for trademark infringement based on Atomic's use of an atom-themed logo that NCP claimed was too similar to its own logo and likely to cause confusion. When Atom moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute, the court denied the motions. The court held that NCP's complaint alleged sufficient facts to state plausible trademark-infringement claims regardless of the fact that the complaint did not describe the similarities between the competing marks because the complaint included pictures of the marks from which one could infer the "basic gist" of NCP's claim. The court also concluded that Atomic could not carry its initial burden to show that Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute applied because the court found that Atomic's logo and marketing materials were not good-faith communications in furtherance of its free-speech or petition rights (Nuclear Care Partners, LLC v. Atomic Legacy Home Health, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00640-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2026)).

NCP and Atomic both provide in-home nursing and home health care services for former Department of Energy employees under a compensation program run by the Department of Labor. NCP maintains registered trademarks for its name and atom-themed logo; it also markets its services through a quarterly publication for its patients called "Atomic Health News." Atomic entered the industry later and eventually began using an atom-themed logo in the same markets as NCP. It does not have any valid trademarks for its logo.

The court first looked at Atomic's claim that NCP had failed to state a claim in its petition because NCP failed to identify which of Atomic's marked infringed on which of NCP's marks. Per the court, the complaint contained three different versions of NCP's mark and at least three different versions of Atomic's, in addition to generally stating that Atomic's marks infringed on NCP's. Atomic argued that conflating the marks obfuscated the distinctions among the marks, failed to identify any similarities between any of Atomic's "individually and inherently distinctive marks" and NCP's, and prevented Atomic from defending itself. The court, however, disagreed. In addition to alleging facts that would be considered when analyzing the factors identified in AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats for determining the likelihood of confusion between trademarks, the complaint also included pictures of the marks from which "one can infer the basic gist of NCP's claims." "I find that including the images of the marks and allowing the inference of comparison is sufficient to meet the low pleading standard for these claims," concluded the court. The court, therefore, denied Atomic's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court then went on to find that Atomic could not carry its initial burden of showing that Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute applied. The court found that Atomic could not meet its initial burden of showing that NCP's trademark infringement claims were based on "a good-faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern," as required by Nevada Revised Statute 41.660. Under the Nevada statute, the plaintiff's claim must fall within one of four statutory categories of communication, among other things. Atomic contended that its communications, website, and marketing materials qualified as good-faith communications under each category because Atomic's business was exclusively targeted to Department of Energy employees. Atomic claimed that this meant that all of its communications to these employees, including the marketing of its logo and name, were aimed at procuring government funding, regarded a matter of concern to a governmental entity, related to an issue under consideration by a government entity, and concerned health care for former federal employees suffering from employment-related harm—an issue of public interest.

To find that Atomic's logo and marketing materials were not good-faith communications in furtherance of its free-speech or petition rights, the court looked to the California courts, as the Nevada Supreme Court had not addressed a fact pattern like the case at hand. The court found "that the Nevada courts would adopt California's approach to purely commercial speech like Atomic's" due to the similarities of their anti-SLAPP statutes and Nevada's repeated pattern of looking to California courts for guidance in this area. In California, it is "well established that commercial speech that does nothing but promote a commercial product or service is not speech protected under the anti-SLAPP statute," stated the Nevada court. Furthermore, under California law, commercial speech about a specific product or service does not become a matter of public interest merely because the product category is a subject of public interest and the products are regulated by public agencies. Because Atomics marketing materials were designed to further Atomic's private interest in increasing the use of its services and not meant to constitute a "public dialogue about healthcare issues for former federal employees, home healthcare, or any other matter of public interest," the court concluded that Atomic's marketing materials did not qualify for protections under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute. The court therefore denied this motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 2:26-cv-00640-JAD-DJA.

Judge: Dorsey, J.

Attorneys: Dalen B. Porter (Wegener Lane & Evans, P.C.) for Nuclear Care Partners, LLC. Billy G. Childress (Gravis Law, PLLC) for Atomic Legacy Home Health, LLC.

Companies: Nuclear Care Partners, LLC; Atomic Legacy Home Health, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Trademark NevadaNews GCNNews