IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—M.D. Fla.: The battle of the 'Hunks' over trademark infringement will proceed, (Jul 8, 2026)

By Sherri M. Schroeder, J.D.

The court found Handy Hunks’ motions to dismiss and strike the trademark infringement claims of the College Hunks trademark owner lacked merit.

A Florida district court has denied defendant Handy Hunks LLC’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike the trademark infringement claims made against it by CHHJ Franchising LLC (College Hunks), which is the owner of the “College Hunks Hauling Junk” and other “Hunks”-related trademarks. College Hunks brought three claims against Handy Hunks alleging trademark infringement and federal unfair competition and trademark infringement under sections 1114 and 1125(a) of the Lanham Act and common law unfair competition under Florida law. When Handy Hunks moved to dismiss and strike the claims made against it, the court found that its argument that the claims should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claims and its move to strike material from the complaint under FRCP 12(f) lacked merit. The court found the 12(f) motion failed at the outset because Handy Hunk’s purpose in filing the motion was to seek dismissal and it offered no authority suggesting that College Hunk’s use of language from Handy Hunk’s customer reviews or advertisements was legally improper. As to the 12(b)(6) motion arguments, the court found College Hunks had plausibly alleged likelihood of confusion, confusing similarity in the marks, similarity in services offered, and willful infringement of its mark. Finally, the court found Handy Hunk’s argument that the common law claim was duplicative of the federal claims to be meritless because the sole case it cited as support did not, in fact, support the claim (CHHJ Franchising LLC v. Handy Hunks LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00982-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla. Jul. 1, 2026)).

Parties. College Hunks offers various manual labor services related to home care, including moving and trash removal, through franchising and licensing. Since 2003, it and its franchisees and licensees have used the trademark “COLLEGE HUNKS HAULING JUNK” and 12 other “HUNKS”-related trademark registrations. A mark showing its name and a muscular man is used in at least three of its registered trademarks.

Handy Hunks is a Florida limited liability company established in February 2024. It provides manual labor services such as home cleaning, junk removal, and moving. One of its managers is the son of a former College Hunks franchisee. It uses a muscular man and its name in its logo.

Motion to strike. Handy Hunks asked the court to strike allegations from the complaint that use a review found on its website and language describing its services from a third-party website. The court found this motion to be improper, as College Hunk’s purpose in filing the motion “clearly is to seek dismissal of the claims, rather than the striking of ‘redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous’ material.” Additionally, Handy Hunks offered no authority to suggest that College Hunk’s use of language from reviews or advertisements in its complaint was improper.

Motion to dismiss. Here, Handy Hunks argued that the Lanham Act claims failed because College Hunks failed to plead that a likelihood of confusion existed between the marks and failed to allege willful infringement. Handy Hunks also argued that the common law unfair competition claim was duplicative of the Lanham Act claims. However, the court found these arguments to be meritless.

First, the court found College Hunks plausibly alleged the likelihood of confusion element for its infringement claims based on the relevant factors laid out by the Eleventh Circuit in All. Metals, Inc. v. Hinely Indus., Inc. For the strength of the mark element, College Hunks alleged that its marks predated that of Handy Hunks and that Handy Hunks knew of the College Hunks’ marks because of the family connections to a former franchisee of College Hunks. College Hunks also alleged that the marks were confusingly similar and provided images of the marks to support that allegation. College Hunks also alleged that Handy Hunks provided similar services.

Next, the court found Handy Hunks to be mistaken in its argument that College Hunks could not seek treble damages and attorney fees under the Lanham Act because the complaint failed to allege Handy Hunks acted with an intent to infringe. The court found this argument failed for reasons similar to Handy Hunks’ confusion argument, as the complaint plausibly alleged willful actions and that Handy Hunks knew of College Hunks’ marks.

Finally, the court found Handy Hunks’ duplicativeness argument to be meritless. Handy Hunks cited a single case, Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., for its argument that unfair competition claims based on trademark infringement are coextensive with Lanham Act claims and therefore may not be brought together. However, the court reviewed the case and found no support for Handy Hunks’ argument.

Therefore, the court denied Handy Hunks’ motions to dismiss and to strike.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00982-SPC-NPM.

Judge: Chappell, S.

Attorneys: Ardith Bronson (DLA Piper LLP) for CHHJ Franchising, L.L.C. Bryan Laurence Loeffler (Loeffler IP Group, P.A.) for Handy Hunks, LLC.

Companies: CHHJ Franchising, LLC; Handy Hunks, LLC

Cases: Trademark FloridaNews