## Facts

- Osgood Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. (Osgood) operated a heating and air conditioning services business in Austin, Texas, founded in 1968.
- Osgood used “Osgood” as a mark identifying the source of its HVAC services.
- In 1998, American Residential Services, L.L.C. (ARS) acquired Osgood, including the Osgood mark.
- After the sale, Charles Osgood, one of Osgood’s original founders and sellers, formed Service Wizard, Inc., an HVAC services business operating in Austin, Texas.
- Service Wizard used a “4‑Osgood” mark in advertising for its HVAC services.
- The “4‑Osgood” advertising ran through multiple channels, including the internet, print, television, and radio.
- ARS and Osgood sued Charles Osgood and Service Wizard and moved for a preliminary injunction, alleging (among other claims) that use of “4‑Osgood” infringed the Osgood mark because it was likely to cause consumer confusion.

## Issues

1. Whether ARS and Osgood, as the buyer and operating company, had enforceable rights in the “Osgood” mark following ARS’s acquisition of the business and its mark.
2. Whether defendants’ use of “4‑Osgood” in advertising for competing HVAC services was likely to cause confusion with the “Osgood” mark.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief based on the evidence presented at the motion stage.

## Decision

- The court addressed plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction directed at defendants’ advertising use of “4‑Osgood” in connection with HVAC services in the Austin market.
- The reported decision resolves the preliminary-injunction request in the trademark dispute between the purchaser of the Osgood business/mark (ARS and Osgood) and the founder’s competing business (Charles Osgood and Service Wizard).
- On the record described in the case summary, the motion centered on trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion between “Osgood” and “4‑Osgood,” and whether interim relief was warranted while the case proceeded.

## Legal Principles

- Trademark rights are tied to use in commerce and, when a business is sold, trademark rights commonly transfer with the business and its associated goodwill.
- A trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act generally turns on whether the challenged use of a mark is likely to cause confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval.
- In assessing likely confusion, courts typically consider the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the parties’ goods or services, the overlap in customers and marketing channels, and other marketplace factors.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is an interim remedy and generally requires a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm absent relief, a balance of equities favoring the movant, and consistency with the public interest.
- Use of a surname as a mark can be restricted where it functions as a source identifier and conflicts with another party’s trademark rights, including rights transferred in a prior sale of the business and goodwill.

## Conclusion

Osgood Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Osgood is a trademark dispute arising after ARS purchased the Osgood HVAC business and its “Osgood” mark, when founder Charles Osgood later formed a competing Austin HVAC company and advertised using “4‑Osgood”; the reported decision addresses plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction based on alleged likelihood of confusion between “Osgood” and “4‑Osgood.”


Osgood Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Osgood, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1432 (2004)