The Western District has preliminarily enjoined JNA Seattle, Inc., and its principals from using “Jonathan Neil & Associates” and “JNA” as part of their trade names and trademarks. The order, which Judge James Robart entered March 14, follows plaintiff Jonathan Neil & Associates’ motion arguing that defendants’ continued use of the terms through trial would create consumer confusion and cause it irreparable harm.
Both firms are collection agencies. Jonathan Neil & Associates is a California corporation. Defendant Jerry Priest worked in Jonathan Neil & Associates’ Seattle office for two years. In 2002, the parties decided to part company. As part of the separation, Mr. Priest took over some of Jonathan Neil & Associates’ business lines. To this end, he formed a Washington corporation, which he called “JNA Seattle.”
Mr. Priest testified he did so with Jonathan Neil & Associates’ permission. He said when the parties separated, they agreed he would use the name “JNA Seattle, Inc.” for new clients and “Jonathan Neil & Associates” for clients he took over from plaintiff. As he understood it, “JNA Seattle would essentially be Jonathan Neil [& Associates] Inc.’s ‘Seattle Office.’”
Jonathan Neil & Associates argued no such agreement existed. It filed suit in October 2006 for trade name infringement and false designation of origin, among other claims.
The court found: “Defendants currently operate under the names ‘JNA Seattle,’ ‘Jonathan Neil & Associates,’ and ‘JNA.’ Defendants have solicited collection accounts using both ‘JNA Seattle’ and ‘Jonathan Neil & Associates’ letterhead. Defendants’ business is listed in the 2007 Seattle yellow pages as ‘Jonathan Neil & Associates’ under ‘Collection Agencies.’ In February 2007, the sign on Defendants’ office door read ‘Jonathan Neil & Associates.’”
The court also found: “Plaintiff presents evidence to show that businesses and attorneys engaged [in] commercial collection have confused Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ businesses. Plaintiff has received requests from companies asking for status reports relating [to] accounts that apparently belong to Defendants.”
Applying the Sleekcraft factors, the court concluded that Jonathan Neil & Associates probably would establish likelihood of confusion at trial because the names are substantially identical, the parties offer identical services, and they use the same marketing channels.
Defendants attempted to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm by arguing that Jonathan Neil & Associates unreasonably delayed in asserting its rights. The court rejected that argument as being “ambiguous at best.” It added that defendants were not prejudiced by any such delay.
The court required a $15,000 bond. It allowed defendants 45 days to stop operating under the subject names and marks.
The case is Jonathan Neil & Associates v. JNA Seattle, Inc., No. 06-1455.