## Facts

- Two employee-placement firms competed in the market for computer and data-processing staffing services, each using “APR”-formative marks.
- In the early 1980s, Barry Heagren co-owned a staffing business that used “APR”; that business was later sold, and the “APR” mark was eventually abandoned around 1988.
- In 1989, Heagren formed Advanced Programming Resources, Inc. and used the acronym “APR” in connection with recruiting and placement services.
- In 1993, Charles Allard founded Allard Enterprises, Inc., a similar placement firm.
- In 1994, Allard began using “APR OF OHIO” for its services and later obtained state and federal registrations for that mark.
- In litigation, the parties stipulated that their marks were confusingly similar and tried the case on priority and scope of rights.
- Defendants presented evidence of pre-1994 “APR” use in solicitations, letterhead, and resumes sent to potential clients as part of bona fide recruiting efforts.
- The trial court found defendants were the first users in commerce and enjoined Allard from using “APR OF OHIO” on a nationwide basis.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ pre-1994 use of “APR” in connection with placement services constituted sufficiently public, bona fide “use in commerce” to establish priority over Allard’s later-adopted and registered “APR OF OHIO” mark.
2. Whether a nationwide permanent injunction was permissible without findings establishing the geographic extent of defendants’ common-law trademark rights.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the finding that defendants had priority because their pre-1994 commercial use of “APR” was sufficiently public and continuous to identify their services to the relevant purchasing public.
- The court held that Allard’s state and federal registrations created, at most, a rebuttable presumption of ownership that was overcome by defendants’ proof of earlier use.
- The court vacated the nationwide permanent injunction and remanded because the trial court did not make findings supporting the geographic scope of defendants’ rights or the breadth of the injunction.
- The court directed that any injunctive relief be tied to the territories where defendants proved protectable prior rights.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark ownership in an unregistered mark is acquired through first bona fide use in commerce, not by registration alone.
- For service marks, “use in commerce” can be shown by genuine commercial recruiting and solicitation activities that publicly identify the services, even if the business is modest or not immediately profitable.
- Federal or state registration is prima facie evidence of ownership, but it does not defeat a senior common-law user who proves earlier use.
- Common-law trademark rights are territorially limited; courts must make specific findings on geographic market penetration and tailor injunctions to the proven scope of the senior user’s rights.
- A nationwide injunction is improper absent record support and explicit findings that the senior user’s rights extend nationwide.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld defendants’ priority in “APR” based on earlier public use tied to staffing services, but it required territorial precision in equitable relief, vacating a nationwide injunction that lacked findings establishing the geographic scope of defendants’ common-law rights.


Allard Enters., Inc. v. Advanced Programming Res., Inc., 146 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 1998)