IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Ill.: Vehicle warranty provider wins preliminary injunction over alleged 'Apex' mark infringement, (Jun 25, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

A court held the company likely to prevail on a claim of trademark infringement against another warranty company.

A federal court granted a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Endurance Dealer Services LLC against Ascent Administrative Services LLC, finding Endurance likely to prevail on its claim involving a set of trademarks involving the term “Apex.” The two companies offer services related to vehicle services contracts (VSCs), also known as extended auto warranties, and Ascent began selling contracts for its own “APEX Commercial Vehicle Protection” product around January 2024 (Endurance Dealer Services, LLC v. Ascent Administration Services LLC, No. 1:26-cv-00280 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 24, 2026)).

Background. Endurance, established in 2010, uses five federally registered and 13 unregistered trademarks including the term “APEX” or “Apex,” according to the ruling in the case. The registered trademarks claim November 2010 as date of first use in commerce and recite as a service “Providing administration of extended service contracts, namely, extended warranty contracts on motor vehicles.” Each of the unregistered marks was first used in commerce at some point between Sept. 11, 2012 and Dec. 1, 2025, according to the ruling.

In 2016, after Endurance applied to register “APEX SELECT” for the provision of VSCs, it received a response from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) indicating a likelihood of confusion between the trademark and a trademark registered by Apex Protection, Inc. (API) for “APEX PROTECTION PLAN.” Endurance sought to cancel API’s registration, and the companies ultimately entered into a coexistence agreement where Endurance agreed not to use APEX in combination with terms including PROTECTION and AUTO, and API agreed to other naming restrictions.

Ascent, incorporated in 2022, began creating its “APEX Commercial Vehicle Protection” product in February 2023. The product went on sale in January 2024 and is sold to commercial and business contracts, “advertised and sold featuring the product name under an image of a mountain,” according to the ruling. Endurance alleges it has received multiple calls from dealers and agents confused about whether Ascent’s products are associated with Endurance, and API has also received calls confusing its own products with Endurance’s.

Endurance alleges it heard of Ascent’s alleged infringement as early as September 2025 and sent a cease-and-desist letter to the company on Sept. 25, 2025. Ascent acknowledged the letter on Oct. 2, 2025. Endurance made further attempts to discuss the alleged infringement with Ascent and ultimately brought suit on Jan. 9, 2026.

Validity of trademarks. While the parties agree on the validity of Endurance’s registered trademarks, there is disagreement about the unregistered ones. Endurance argues they have “acquired distinctiveness through widespread use and advertising,” while Ascent says the term “Apex” is descriptive. The parties also dispute Endurance’s alternative theory that it has a family of marks on which Ascent infringes.

The court found Endurance is likely to show that its unregistered marks are suggestive. The term Apex isn’t common in the VSC market, used only by one other company with whom Endurance has a coexistence agreement, and understanding what services the mark refers to “requires a leap of imagination,” according to the ruling. And even if the marks were merely descriptive, they have acquired secondary meaning in the market, the court found, pointing to their use for more than a decade and the fact that both Endurance and API have received inquiries about Apex-branded products believed to be Endurance’s.

Endurance is also likely to show that a family of marks exists, the court found. All of the marks contain the word “Apex,” they have been continuously used since as early as 2012, and “dealers and agents of Endurance have expressed actual confusion about whether Ascent’s Apex products belonged to Endurance,” according to the ruling. While Ascent argues customers only associate Apex marks with endurance in the consumer vehicle market, cross-market recognition is not a requirement or the existence of a family of marks or trademark protection, the court found, especially since the trademark refers simply to “motor vehicles” without a commercial or consumer distinction and Endurance provides both commercial and consumer VSCs.

Likelihood of confusion. The court also found Endurance is likely to show a likelihood of confusion between its products and Ascent’s, weighing seven factors used for such a determination in the Seventh Circuit.

Ascent argued the first factor, similarity of the marks, weighs in its favor, since its mark includes the mountain image and the additional text “Commercial Vehicle Protection.” But the court found the factor weighs in Endurance’s favor, noting that Ascent’s logo has Apex as the salient factor, while Endurance’s contains only that word.

Ascent also argued the products are dissimilar, since it targeted the commercial market while Endurance targets consumers. But Endurance said both companies offer VSCs for both markets and its trademarks are for VSCs generally. The court found the “similarity of the products weighs in strong favor of Endurance” and that “the broader overlap between plaintiff and defendant’s means and channels of commerce weighs strongly in favor of Endurance.” Additionally, the degree of care likely to be exercised by consumers weighs “slightly” in favor of Endurance, since both companies sell to the consumer market where buyers “exercise a lesser degree of care” in selecting a product.

The strength of the marks also weighs in favor of Endurance, the court found, pointing to the finding that Endurance is likely to show its marks suggestive and to show the existence of a family of marks.

The evidence of actual confusion also weighs in favor of Endurance, the court found. Ascent argued that the dealers and agents who showed confusion are not actual customers, but the court found their confusion could signal consumers would also be likely to be confused and could itself boost the odds of consumer confusion, since dealers and agents influence consumers. The confusion of Endurance and API products, too, reflect confusion around the term Apex by sources other than Endurance, the court noted.

The question of Ascent’s intent also weighs slightly in favor of Endurance, according to the ruling. Endurance argued Ascent had longstanding knowledge of its marks and continued to use them despite the cease-and-desist letter. The court agreed, citing Endurance’s market dominance, long use of the marks, and an Ascent national sales director having seen the marks as early as May 2024 before working at Ascent, when he was discussing a job opening at Endurance. Ascent “failed to rebut” the evidence it disregarded Endurance’s trademark rights, according to the ruling.

Irreparable harm. To be eligible for a preliminary injunction, Endurance must also show that it would otherwise suffer irreparable harm. Endurance argues it will do so because it will be associated with any issues with Ascent’s products. Ascent claims that argument is merely speculative, but the court noted the parties agree Endurance is entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm on showing likelihood of success on its infringement suit and found Ascent failed to rebut that presumption.

Ascent also argued Endurance is barred from injunctive relief because it delayed in filing for it, but the court found “any delay in bringing suit arose as a result of Endurance’s efforts to first engage directly with Ascent, including through the issuance of a cease-and-desist letter as early as September 2025.”

Balance of equities and public interest. Endurance argues the balance of inquiries tips in its favor, because it would “lose profits, reputation, and goodwill that it built by investing in its brand for more than a decade,” Ascent argues the balance of equities leans in its favor, since an injunction would disrupt its business relationships. The court found the balance of equities rules in favor of issuing an injunction, as does the public interest, which favors enforcing trademark law to reduce confusion.

Bond. Endurance argued it should not need to post a bond, while Ascent said it should be required, since “it would suffer significant damages if wrongfully enjoined.” The court found that in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, it should grant a defendant’s request for a bond, ordering Endurance to post $10,000 and allowing Ascent to subsequently move for a larger bond if it believes that is insufficient.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-00280.

Judge: Cummings, J.

Attorneys: Steven N. Malitz (Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP) for Endurance Dealer Services, LLC. Carla Carter (Davis & Carter LLC) for Ascent Administration Services LLC.

Companies: Endurance Dealer Services, LLC; Ascent Administration Services LLC

Cases: Trademark IllinoisNews