IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—M.D. Fla.: Sports therapy provider did not infringe rival’s TAMPA BAY SPINE & SPORTS MEDICINE mark, (Oct 6, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Court found that the asserted mark was merely descriptive, lacked secondary meaning, and was therefore invalid under the Lanham Act.

A Florida federal court granted summary judgment to a multi-location chiropractic and sports therapy provider and denied the cross-motion filed by a local chiropractic and rehabilitation practice in a trademark dispute over the use of the mark TAMPA BAY SPINE AND SPORT. The court found that the defendant’s asserted mark, TAMPA BAY SPINE & SPORTS MEDICINE, was merely descriptive and lacked secondary meaning, rendering it invalid under the Lanham Act. As a result, the rival’s claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition were dismissed (Trasco Wellness, LLC v. Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Medicine, LLC, No. 8:23-cv-02536-WFJ-LSG (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff, Trasco Wellness, LLC, operates several clinics across the Tampa Bay region under the trade name “Tampa Bay Spine and Sport.” It offers chiropractic, physiotherapy, orthopedic, and sports medicine services. The defendant, Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Medicine, LLC (TBSSM), runs a single Palm Harbor clinic offering comparable chiropractic and rehabilitation treatments.

TBSSM claimed ownership of the mark TAMPA BAY SPINE & SPORTS MEDICINE, registered on the Supplemental Register (U.S. Reg. No. 7430833) and the Florida state register (No. T23000001024).

The conflict began after Trasco Wellness adopted the name “Tampa Bay Spine and Sport” in 2022. In early 2023, Dr. Eric Nye, owner of Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Medicine (TBSSM), filed fictitious name registrations for similar variations—“Tampa Bay Spine & Sport” and “Tampa Bay Spine and Sport”—and sent Trasco a cease-and-desist letter demanding it stop using the name. Trasco refused, pointing to widespread third-party use of comparable phrases in the Tampa Bay area. Then, Trasco initiated this federal declaratory judgment action in the Middle District of Florida, seeking findings of non-infringement and invalidity of TBSSM's mark under the Lanham Act and Florida common law. TBSSM counterclaimed for infringement and unfair competition. Following discovery, Trasco filed a Third Amended Complaint refining its challenge on grounds of descriptiveness and genericness, and both parties later moved for summary judgment.

Descriptiveness. The court explained that under the Lanham Act, only distinctive marks qualify for protection. Because TBSSM’s registration appeared on the Supplemental Register, it had no presumption of validity. Citing OpenAI, Inc. v. Open A.I., Inc., 719 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2024), the court noted that the burden of proving distinctiveness lay with TBSSM.

Applying the “imagination test” and “third-party use test” from Engineered Tax Services, Inc. v. Scarpello Consulting, Inc., 958 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2020), the court found the mark merely descriptive. “Tampa Bay” indicated geographic origin, while “Spine & Sports Medicine” directly described the offered services. Consumers would immediately understand the business’s nature without imagination.

The record also showed widespread third-party use of similar names in the region, such as “Tampa Spine and Wellness.” Relying on Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Clark, 80 U.S. 311 (1871), the court held that combining geographic and descriptive terms rarely yields a protectable mark.

Secondary meaning. The court next examined whether the mark had acquired secondary meaning, that is, whether consumers associated it with a single source. Applying Royal Palm Properties, LLC v. Pink Palm Properties, LLC, 950 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 2020), the court found TBSSM’s evidence insufficient.

Though the business had used the mark since 2019, it operated only one office and offered no proof of significant advertising, publicity, or consumer surveys. Limited local sponsorships and minor online marketing did not demonstrate public recognition. Further, the court held that mere longevity of use cannot establish secondary meaning without credible evidence of consumer association.

Finding that TBSSM’s mark was both descriptive and lacked secondary meaning, the court ruled it invalid and unenforceable under federal law.

Non-infringement. Because TBSSM’s mark was invalid, the court concluded that it lacked a valid, protectable interest—an essential element of infringement. Citing Dieter v. B & H Indus. of S.W. Fla., Inc., 880 F.2d 322 (11th Cir. 1989), it found that any perceived confusion resulted from the descriptive overlap of common terms, not from trademark misuse.

The court therefore entered a declaratory judgment for Trasco Wellness, finding its use of “Tampa Bay Spine and Sport” non-infringing, and dismissed all of TBSSM’s claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Common law claims. TBSSM’s Florida common-law claims failed for the same reasons as its federal claims. Citing Florida Int’l Univ. Bd. of Trustees v. Florida Nat’l Univ., Inc., 830 F.3d 1242, 1267 (11th Cir. 2016), the court stated that state trademark protection depends on the same validity standards. Because TBSSM’s mark was descriptive and unenforceable, its state claims were likewise dismissed. The court also deemed TBSSM’s counterclaims abandoned due to lack of evidence or argument.

Conclusion. Thus, the court concluded that the asserted mark was invalid for descriptiveness and lack of secondary meaning. The court granted summary judgment to Trasco Wellness, denied TBSSM’s motion, and dismissed all claims of infringement and unfair competition.

The Case is No. 8:23-cv-02536-WFJ-LSG.

Judge: Jung, W.

Attorneys: Amber N. Davis (Wolter Van Dyke Davis, PLLC) for Trasco Wellness, LLC d/b/a Tampa Bay Spine and Sport. Nickolas C. Ekonomides (Nickolas C. Ekonomides, P.A.) for Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Medicine, LLC and Tampa Bay Spine and Sport, LLC.

Companies: Trasco Wellness, LLC d/b/a Tampa Bay Spine and Sport; Tampa Bay Spine & Sports Medicine, LLC; Tampa Bay Spine and Sport, LLC

Cases: Trademark FloridaNews