IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Permanent injunction granted to USA Weightlifting, Inc., enjoining use of protected marks, (Apr 24, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.,

This ruling is on the heels of last month’s finding of trademark infringement and violations of New York and federal law.

A New York federal district court has granted a motion for permanent injunctive relief in favor of USA Weightlifting, Inc. (USA Weightlifting), and against USA Masters Weightlifting Inc. (Masters), after a March finding that Masters had violated trademarks, including words and design marks for “USA WEIGHTLIFTING” and “USA MASTERS WEIGHTLIFTING.” The court found for USA Weightlifting on its motion and enjoined Masters from further trademark infringement or injurious acts, including using the marks to identify goods or in a trade name, website URL, or social media site or platform (USA Masters Weightlifting Inc. v. USA Weightlifting, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06095-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2026)).

History of dispute. USA Weightlifting is the national governing body for the sport of weightlifting in the U.S., and it owns the registered trademarks for “USA WEIGHTLIFTING” and “USA MASTERS WEIGHTLIFTING.” “Masters” is a term of art referring to athletic events for athletes of a certain age. In 2021, five members of the Masters Committee separated from USA Weightlifting and established USA Masters Weightlifting, Inc. Masters later filed the current suit, seeking declaratory relief that the marks discussed above were invalid. USA Weightlifting then counterclaimed, arguing that Masters engaged in trademark infringement, cybersquatting, and further violated New York state law.

Each party filed a motion for summary judgment and the court denied and dismissed all claims from Masters and ruled in favor of USA Weightlifting on all of its claims. Within that ruling, the court found that the evidence of bad faith by Masters in continued trademark infringement was “clear beyond any genuine dispute.” Accordingly, USA Weightlifting moved for a permanent injunction against Masters.

The ruling on injunction. In order to obtain a permanent injunction against Masters, USA Weightlifting had to establish four factors: an irreparable injury, inadequacy of remedies at law such as money damages, that equity warrants injunction in a balancing of hardships, and that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. The court found in USA Weightlifting’s favor on each factor and granted the injunction.

A showing of a likelihood of confusion on the underlying claims created a rebuttable presumption for USA Weightlifting on irreparable injury, and the court found that Masters failed to rebut that presumption. The conduct of Masters, including ignoring demand letters and continuing infringement and cybersquatting during the lawsuit, was cited as a basis for a finding of inadequacy of remedies at law.

In balancing the hardships, the court noted USA Weighlifting’s expenditure of “substantial time and resources over decades to build the strength and recognition” of its marks and found “no hardship for [Masters] to follow the law.” Finally, considering the public interest in being free from confusion, deception, and mistake, the court found that the public interest would not be disserved by injunction.

Under the terms of the injunction, Masters and its employees and agents are prohibited from:

• Using the marks in question to identify goods and services which are not authorized by USA Weightlifting;

• Using the words “USA Masters Weightlifting” or “USA Weightlifting” as a corporate or trade name, in a URL or in a social media site or platform;

• Using the disputed marks or any marks or images confusingly similar;

• Engaging in acts constituting trademark infringement, unfair competition, or false advertising;

• Using the disputed marks in promotion, advertisement, display, or sale of goods or services;

• Making any statement or representation connecting services or products with USA Weightlifting;

• Transferring or forming entities or associations to circumvent the requirements above; and

• Inducing, encouraging, instigating, aiding, abetting, or contributing to any prohibited acts above.

In addition, Masters was ordered to destroy all unauthorized materials under the injunction, to transfer domain names www.mastersweightlifting.org and www.usamastersweightlifting.com, and to provide a report to the court within 30 days detailing its manner and form of compliance.

Attorney commentary.Naresh Kilaru, partner at Finnegan and leader of the firm’s trademark practice, commented on the case for Wolters Kluwer. “The case is not an outlier but is notable for a combination of factors that made injunctive relief relatively straightforward,” he said. “USA Weightlifting had federally registered marks, the breakaway group used identical or near-identical marks and trade channels, and the record supported findings of likelihood of confusion, actual confusion, and bad faith—including what the court characterized as ‘slavish copying.’” He explained that the scope of the decision is not limited to sports governing bodies. “Rather, it reflects a broader trend after the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 where courts apply a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm once trademark infringement is established, making permanent injunctive relief a very realistic remedy,” Kilaru said.

“The analytical framework for injunctive relief is one that can apply in many trademark disputes involving breakaway groups, affiliates, or former committees,” he elaborated. “More broadly, the decision sends a message to sports governing bodies that breakaway groups using the same or similar name as the official organization will not be tolerated under trademark law.”

With respect to the injunction’s effects on the competitive weightlifting community, Kilaru told Wolters Kluwer, “The injunction is aimed at reducing confusion for athletes and organizers by ensuring that ‘USA Weightlifting’ and ‘USA Masters Weightlifting’ branding is used only by the official organization. The order also requires the breakaway group to stop using and transfer control of the contested domains and to destroy unauthorized materials bearing the marks, which should further limit ongoing confusion of participants seeking official masters programming.”

He added, “From a competitive standpoint, the injunction does not prevent masters-aged athletes from competing. Rather, it restricts a particular organization’s ability to do so under branding that the court found likely to confuse consumers.”

Kilaru also said that monetary relief remains available in this case, including actual damages, potential disgorgement of profits, and, on the cybersquatting claim, statutory damages. “While most trademark cases are about obtaining an injunction and not pursuing money,” he explained, “monetary damages here are a real possibility given the statutory damages available under ACPA and the court’s finding of bad faith conduct.”

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-06095-JSR.

Judge: Rakoff, J.

Attorneys: Gerard Francis Dunne (Law Office of Gerard F. Dunne, PC) for USA Masters Weightlifting Inc. Thomas James Schell (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP) for USA Weightlifting, Inc. Naresh Kilaru (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP).

Companies: USA Masters Weightlifting Inc; USA Weightlifting, Inc.

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews