IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D. Ga.: Furniture retailers can pursue cancellation of rival’s HOMETOWN marks and abuse-of-process claims, (Oct 8, 2026)

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

The competing retailers sufficiently alleged genericness and misuse of trademark litigation, but their unfair competition and tortious interference counterclaims lacked factual support.

A federal district court in Georgia has allowed two furniture retailers accused of trademark infringement to pursue counterclaims seeking cancellation of three registered HOMETOWN-related marks and alleging abuse of legal process by a competing furniture chain. The retailers plausibly alleged that the disputed marks were generic and that the trademark owner used its infringement lawsuit to damage their commercial reputation. However, the court dismissed their federal and state unfair competition and tortious interference counterclaims with prejudice because they failed to identify sufficiently specific misleading communications or disrupted business relationships (Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors, Inc. v. Pridefam Business Ventures, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00144-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2026)).

Competing furniture retailers. Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors, Inc., doing business as Farmers Home Furniture, operates more than 260 retail locations across the southeastern United States, including over 100 in Georgia. The company owns three federally registered trademarks covering retail furniture store services: YOUR HOMETOWN STORE (Registration No. 2,343,623), YOUR HOME TOWN STORE (Registration No. 2,341,415) and THE HOMETOWN STORE YOU CAN TRUST (Registration No. 2,483,309). Farmers Home claimed use of the first two marks since 1998 and the third since 2001.

Pridefam Business Ventures, LLC, and 2002 Marshall Enterprises, LLC, operate Hometown Furniture stores in several Georgia communities, including Valdosta, Douglas, Glennville, Quitman and Baxley. Their websites emphasize locally focused, community-centered furniture retailing.

Farmers Home sued in November 2025, alleging that the Hometown Furniture name infringed its marks by incorporating the dominant term “Hometown.” It also challenged the retailers’ advertising tagline, “Furniture You Love, A Hometown You Trust,” as confusingly similar to THE HOMETOWN STORE YOU CAN TRUST. The competing stores offered similar services, sometimes in close geographic proximity.

The Hometown Furniture operators responded with counterclaims seeking cancellation of Farmers Home’s registrations and alleging abuse of process, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business relationships. Farmers Home moved to dismiss the amended counterclaims.

Genericness challenge. The court rejected Farmers Home’s attempt to dismiss the trademark cancellation counterclaim. Although the parties agreed that the disputed registrations had attained incontestable status, that protection did not foreclose a genericness challenge.

Under Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985), an incontestable trademark cannot be challenged merely because it is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning. However, generic terms remain ineligible for trademark protection, and a registration may be canceled if the mark has become generic.

Consequently, the competing retailers could not rely on descriptiveness or lack of secondary meaning as independent grounds for cancellation. Their genericness allegations, however, provided a legally permissible basis.

The retailers identified ten registered trademarks incorporating “hometown” in the furniture industry and thirteen website links using that term in connection with furniture-related services. The court considered those examples sufficient factual support at the pleading stage.

The court also applied United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549 (2020), which requires assessing the distinctiveness of a compound mark as a whole rather than examining its individual components in isolation. Although the counterclaims primarily identified third-party uses of “hometown,” those allegations could support further examination of the complete marks.

The court distinguished another district court decision rejecting a genericness challenge to EAT DRINK PLAY because the challenger had offered inadequate evidence of relevant third-party use.

Farmers Home also argued that its June 2025 letter describing “hometown” as suggesting a locally owned or community-focused furniture store amounted to no concession of genericness. The court agreed that the statement was not an admission. Nevertheless, the other allegations made the cancellation counterclaim plausible. Whether the competing retailers could ultimately prove genericness remained unresolved.

Abuse-of-process claim. The court also permitted the Hometown Furniture operators’ Georgia common-law abuse-of-process counterclaim to proceed.

Under Cooper v. Public Finance Corp., 246 S.E.2d 684 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978), abuse of process requires an ulterior motive and improper use of legal process after its issuance. Merely filing an allegedly unfounded lawsuit does not establish the tort.

Here, the counterclaims alleged more than wrongful initiation of litigation. Farmers Home allegedly invoked the pending infringement lawsuit and its counterfeiting allegations in communications with customers, vendors and other market participants to portray the rival businesses as unlawful or illegitimate.

The retailers further alleged that Farmers Home used those communications to damage their reputation, discourage commercial activity and pressure them to curtail operations in overlapping markets.

The court found those allegations sufficient to distinguish ordinary trademark enforcement from a potentially improper use of litigation to achieve a collateral commercial objective. Farmers Home’s motion to stay discovery, although not independently abusive, was also consistent with the alleged account of prolonged reputational pressure.

Unfair competition counterclaim. The competing retailers were less successful with their federal unfair competition counterclaim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

Relying on Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2004), the court explained that a false advertising claim requires, among other elements, a false or misleading representation made through commercial advertising or promotion.

The counterclaims alleged that Farmers Home falsely characterized the Hometown Furniture operations as infringement or counterfeiting. However, they failed to explain who made particular statements, who received them, how they were disseminated, or whether the communications were intended to influence purchasing decisions.

The court distinguished the requirements for abuse of process from those governing false advertising. Allegations sufficient to suggest improper litigation tactics did not necessarily establish actionable commercial promotion.

Because the retailers failed to plead the commercial advertising element adequately, their Lanham Act counterclaim failed. The related Georgia common-law unfair competition claim failed under the same analysis.

Tortious interference claim. The Hometown Furniture operators additionally alleged that Farmers Home interfered with relationships involving customers, vendors, landlords, lenders, employees, and prospective business partners.

However, they failed to identify even one business relationship the alleged communications actually disrupted. The court explained that Georgia law did not necessarily require naming affected third parties, but it did require factual allegations showing that interference caused a party to abandon or decline a business relationship.

The generalized assertions of ongoing economic harm were insufficient. The retailers’ request for additional discovery could not cure the pleading deficiencies because discovery was not intended to determine whether an otherwise speculative claim existed.

Having already amended their counterclaims once, the Hometown Furniture operators were denied another opportunity to amend. The court therefore dismissed their unfair competition and tortious interference counterclaims with prejudice while allowing the trademark cancellation and abuse-of-process counterclaims to proceed. Farmers Home’s underlying infringement claims remained pending.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00144-LGW-BWC.

Judge: Wood, L.

Attorneys: Avery E. Carter (Arnall, Golden & Gregory, LLP) for Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors, Inc. Jeffer Ali (Husch Blackwell LLP) for Pridefam Business Ventures, LLC.

Companies: Warehouse Home Furnishings Distributors, Inc.; Pridefam Business Ventures, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Trademark GeorgiaNews GCNNews