## Facts

- Meridian Mutual Insurance Company, an Indiana insurer, had used “Meridian” in the insurance business since 1953 and marketed insurance through independent agents in nine Midwestern states, including Illinois.
- Meridian Mutual owned a federally registered service mark, MERIDIAN, for underwriting life, health, property, and casualty insurance; the registration was incontestable.
- In July 1996, Meridian Insurance Group, Inc. was incorporated in Illinois to operate as an insurance broker selling group life and health plans in the Chicago area.
- Defendants selected “Meridian” as part of their corporate name and conducted a name search that indicated the term was already used in the insurance industry in some states.
- Meridian Mutual learned of the name conflict after Illinois denied it a certificate of authority because of the existing “Meridian” corporate name.
- Meridian Mutual sued for Lanham Act service-mark infringement and related state-law unfair competition/deceptive trade practices and sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendants’ use of “Meridian.”
- The district court denied preliminary relief, finding insufficient likelihood of confusion.
- Meridian Mutual appealed from the interlocutory order denying the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether Meridian Mutual showed a likelihood of success on the merits of its Lanham Act service-mark infringement claim by establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion.
2. Whether Meridian Mutual met the equitable requirements for a preliminary injunction, including irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to issue injunctive relief.
- The court held that Meridian Mutual demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because the likelihood-of-confusion factors, properly applied, favored Meridian Mutual.
- The court found the district court abused its discretion by misapplying and misweighing the confusion analysis, including minimizing the similarity created by defendants’ use of “Meridian” as the dominant term in an insurance-related business name.
- The court concluded that likely confusion supported a presumption of irreparable harm, that Meridian Mutual’s harm outweighed defendants’ early-stage renaming costs, and that the public interest favored avoiding marketplace confusion.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires (1) some likelihood of success on the merits, (2) no adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm without relief, (3) a favorable balance of harms, and (4) consistency with the public interest.
- In Lanham Act cases, a showing of likely confusion ordinarily supports an inference of irreparable harm because injury to goodwill and loss of control over reputation are difficult to quantify.
- A federally registered, incontestable mark carries strong presumptions of validity and an exclusive right to use the mark for the registered services; courts must give substantial weight to that status in evaluating confusion.
- Likelihood of confusion turns on the overall marketplace impression; differences in corporate function (e.g., underwriting vs. brokerage) do not preclude confusion where services are closely related and offered in overlapping markets.
- Use of a senior user’s exact mark as the dominant portion of a junior user’s name in the same general industry strongly supports likely confusion even without substantial evidence of actual confusion at an early stage.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit ordered preliminary injunctive relief because defendants’ use of “Meridian” for insurance brokerage services in the same region was likely to confuse consumers with Meridian Mutual’s strong, incontestable MERIDIAN service mark, and the equitable factors favored immediate restraint.


Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Meridian Ins. Grp., Inc., 128 F.3d 1111 (7th Cir. 1997)