IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D. Ohio: Motion to dismiss HVAC company’s claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution granted, (Jul 16, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a likelihood of confusion between its mark and the defendant’s logo that includes the phrase “Comfort Crew.”

The U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division granted an Ohio HVAC service provider’s motion to dismiss an Oklahoma competitor’s claims for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and Ohio law claims because the Oklahoma company ailed to establish a likelihood of confusion between its “Comfort Crew” mark and the defendant’s logo that included the phrase “Comfort Crew.” The district court also dismissed the federal trademark dilution claim finding that niche fame is insufficient to support a trademark dilution claim (Bloomer Heat & Air LLC v. Comfort Crew Heating & Cooling LLC, No. 2:24-cv-04151-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio July 14, 2025)).

Background. Bloomer Heat & Air LLC d/b/a Comfort Crew Heating & Air (Bloomer) is an Oklahoma-based company formed in 2014 that provides residential HVAC services, and operated under the name Comfort Crew Heating & Air. In 2016, Bloomer registered a stylized trademark for its logo that included the phrase “Comfort Crew”. Bloomer’s mark consists of an image of a man with tan skin, a white shirt, black hair, an aqua hat and aqua jacket, red pants and black shoes. The man is carrying a gray wrench positioned above a keystone shape containing the words “COMFORT CREW” in red all over the words “HEATING AND AIR” in white superimposed over a green rectangle. The keystone shape appears in the color yellow with a green outline. A yellow border appears around the entire mark.

The defendant, Comfort Crew Heating & Cooling LLC is an Ohio company formed in 2023 that also provides HVAC services. Bloomer filed this suit challenging the defendant’s use of a logo that includes the phrase “Comfort Crew” in the white rectangle. Bloomer asserted claims for federal trademark infringement and unfair competition and their Ohio common law counterparts (Counts I, II, V, and VI), federal trademark dilution (Count III), and deceptive trade practices under Ohio Rev. Code § 4165.02 (Count IV). The defendant moved to dismiss all six claims.

Trademark infringement, unfair competition, and their common law counterparts. The district court noted that the same analysis applies to federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, Ohio common law, and Ohio’s deceptive trade practices statutes, so it addressed the Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI together.

Here, the defendant did not contend that it uses its logo in a non-trademark way. Therefore, the district court weighed the following eight-factors to determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists: (1) strength of the senior mark; (2) relatedness of the goods or services; (3) the similarity of the marks, (4) evidence of actual confusion, (5) the marketing channels used, (6) the likely degree of purchaser care, (7) the intent of the defendant in selecting the mark, and (8) the likelihood of expansion of the product lines. The district court found that Bloomer’s mark was registered for more than five years and therefore carried a presumption of strength. The district court noted that if the goods or services are somewhat related but not competitive, the likelihood of confusion will turn on other factors. Here, although the parties offer identical services (HVAC), they operate in different geographic territories and thus do not compete. Thus, the likelihood of confusion turns on other factors.

The district court found that Bloomer’s mark and the defendant’s logo are not confusingly similar. While both contained the phrase “Comfort Crew” over a phrase that begins “Heating &”, that is where the similarities end. The color schemes, typeface, and graphics are different. Bloomer’s mark displays “Comfort Crew” in an anvil-shape and “Heating & Air” in an oval and the defendant’s logo displays “Comfort Crew” in a hexagon and “Heating & Cooling” in a square. Bloomer’s mark features a cartoon man holding an oversized wrench and the defendant’s logo has no arguable companion feature. Therefore, this factor weighed heavily against a likelihood of confusion. The district court also noted that as Bloomer’s mark and the defendant’s logo are not similar and thus customers are unlikely to be confused even if exerting a low degree of care. Thus, this factor is neutral.

Bloomer alleged that one consumer called it by mistake when trying to reach the defendant. However, Bloomer provided no factual support that the mistake occurred because the consumer was confused between Bloomer’s mark and the defendant’s logo. Because evidence of actual confusion is not required to properly plead a claim for trademark infringement, this factor is neutral. Bloomer did not allege that the defendant intended to use a confusingly similar mark. Accordingly, this factor is also neutral.

The district court noted that both Bloomer and the defendant advertise their services on websites that include respective logos, and that Bloomer’s customers are in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas while the defendant’s customers are in Ohio. Although Bloomer alleged that it is continuing to grow its business, it made no allegations that this targets its marketing efforts to Ohio residents or that the defendant targets its efforts to Oklahoma, Kansas, or Arkansas residents. Therefore, this factor weighed heavily against a likelihood of confusion. Bloomer alleged that that it is continuing to grow its business throughout the country, but made no allegations of its efforts or intent to expand into Ohio. Accordingly, this factor is neutral.

The district court determined that Bloomer’s alleged only one of the eight factors that would favor finding a likelihood of confusion, so it has not plausibly alleged its federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and Ohio law claims. Accordingly, Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI were dismissed.

Trademark dilution. Bloomer alleged that its mark become “well known and famous” under the Lanham Act. However, Bloomer’s only factual supports for this conclusion are that it displays the mark on its website and that it maintains a high reputation in the Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Kansas communities. The district court determined that niche fame is insufficient to support a trademark dilution claim. Accordingly, Bloomer’s trademark dilution claim was dismissed.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-04151-SDM-KAJ.

Judge: Morrison, S.

Attorneys: Rachel Nicole Byrnes (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP) for Bloomer Heat & Air LLC. Andrew Casey Clark (Onda, LaBuhn, Ernsberger & Boggs Co., LPA) for Comfort Crew Heating & Cooling LLC.

Companies: Bloomer Heat & Air LLC; Comfort Crew Heating & Air; Comfort Crew Heating & Cooling LLC

Cases: Trademark OhioNews