IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Mich.: Software trainer cannot use program title in business name, URL, (Feb 10, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

A jury had previously found in favor of the defendant’s fair use defense, but the court later found that defense failed as a matter of law.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan permanently barred a software training business from using the title of a computer program in the name of the business and in the URL of the business’ website. After finding that the owner of the mark showed actual success on the merits of its infringement claim, the court weighed the injunctive relief factors set forth in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). The court concluded that the owner suffered irreparable injury; the remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; a remedy in equity is warranted; and the public interest would not be disserved by the injunction (Dassault Systèmes, SA v. Childress, No. 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH (E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2026)).

Background. France-based Dassault Systemes, S.A. developed a computer design software program called CATIA. Dassault sued the defendant, Keith Childress, alleging trademark infringement because he used the CATIA mark in the name of his business, which is entitled “Practical Catia Training,” and in the URL for that business.

The case was first tried to a jury in 2017, but the result of that trial was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which remanded for a new trial. A second trial was held in March 2024. Although the re-trial jury found that Dassault had established all the elements of its trademark infringement claim, the jury found in favor of Childress on his fair use defense and denied Dassault recovery on that claim. Dassault subsequently filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law in its favor on the fair use defense, which the court granted. Dassault then moved for an entry of a permanent injunction barring Childress from using the CATIA mark, which Childress opposed.

Permanent injunction. The court granted Dassault’s motion for a permanent injunction. The order enjoins Childress from using the CATIA mark in (1) the name of any business that he operates; (2) the name of any course that he teaches; and (3) any website URL that he uses. The order further requires Childress to deactivate his website.

Merits of trademark infringement claim. First, the court found that Dassault showed actual success on the merits of its claim that Childress infringed its CATIA mark when he used the mark in the name of his business and in the URL for his business.

Jury and likelihood of confusion. Childress argued that as a factual matter, the jury did not find in favor of Dassault on the likelihood of confusion element of its trademark infringement claim. However, the court concluded that the jury did find Dassault had established the likelihood of confusion element of its infringement claim, even though the jury “was not asked to answer a specific question concerning that issue on the verdict form.”

Initial interest confusion. Childress alternatively argued that if the jury did, in fact, find a likelihood of confusion, it could have only found “initial interest confusion,” which he argued had been foreclosed as a matter of law. The court disagreed. The court said Childress failed to establish that the only type of confusion the jury could have found was initial interest confusion, and more significantly, the law of the case doctrine did not preclude Dassault from presenting, or the jury from finding, initial interest confusion.

Acquiescence. Childress argued that Dassault cannot prevail on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because that claim is barred by the equitable doctrine of acquiescence. The court concluded that although Childress’ theory of acquiescence is plausible, it is not persuasively supported by the evidence.

Unclean hands. Childress argued that Dassault cannot show success on the merits because Dassault’s trademark infringement claim is barred by unclean hands. The court disagreed. The jury at the March 2024 re-trial rejected the unclean hands defense, and the court said Childress failed to persuade the court that there is any reason to depart from the jury’s decision.

Injunctive relief factors. Second, weighing the injunctive relief factors set forth in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the court found that Dassault suffered irreparable injury; the remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; a remedy in equity is warranted; and the public interest would not be disserved by the injunction.

Irreparable injury. The court found that Dassault has shown it would suffer an irreparable injury absent permanent injunctive relief. The court reasoned that Dassault is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm, which Childress did not overcome. Childress also admitted to insolvency and an inability to pay any judgment issued against him.

Adequate remedy at law. The court found that the factor of whether Dassault has an adequate remedy at law favored Dassault. Childress’ insolvency makes it likely that absent an injunction, Dassault will be left without any remedy for Childress’ infringement. There is also potential for future harm. The court said Dassault’s decision to forego seeking damages was not a concession that such damages could be reasonably calculated or that Dassault had an adequate remedy at law.

Balance of harms. The court concluded that Dassault would suffer harm from Childress’ continued wrongful use of its CATIA mark in the form of customer confusion caused by that use. Meanwhile, the court said Childress as the infringing party would face “no hardship in refraining from willful trademark infringement,” citing Audi AG v. D’Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 550 (6th Cir. 2006). The court also found that Childress used the CATIA mark with knowledge that it may cause confusion.

Public interest. The court found that the public would benefit from eliminating consumer confusion. The court said its decision would not prevent Childress from operating his school or website or from offering training services on the CATIA software.

The Case is No. 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH.

Judge: Leitman, M.

Attorneys: Glenn E. Forbis (Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.) for Dassault Systemes, SA. Keith Childress, pro se.

Companies: Dassault Systemes, SA

Cases: Trademark MichiganNews