## Facts

- WWP, Inc. (Wounded Warrior Project) operated as a veterans charity using the “Wounded Warrior Project” name and related branding.
- Wounded Warriors Family Support, Inc. (WWFS) operated a similar charity and used the domain name **woundedwarriors.org** as a primary fundraising platform.
- WWP alleged WWFS’s name, domain, and website presentation caused donor confusion and diverted donations intended for WWP.
- After WWFS launched woundedwarriors.org, its donations increased sharply (from roughly $1,300 per month to over $87,900 per month).
- WWP’s damages expert estimated misdirected donations exceeded $2 million.
- WWFS’s internal review identified **89 of approximately 7,500** donations received during the website’s operation that referenced “Wounded Warrior Project” or well-known WWP fundraising efforts, supporting evidence of actual confusion.
- WWP sued for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices, and sought injunctive relief.
- During discovery, WWFS sought all WWP donation documents since 2002; the district court denied the motion to compel as overbroad and unduly burdensome.
- A jury found for WWP and awarded damages; the district court issued an injunction that, among other terms, required WWFS to remove its website from the Internet.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying WWFS’s motion to compel broad production of WWP’s donor records.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s liability findings and damages award based on misdirected donations, including the admissibility and reliability of expert testimony.
3. Whether the injunction, particularly the requirement that WWFS remove its website from the Internet, was impermissibly overbroad and not narrowly tailored to prevent consumer confusion.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to compel, holding the district court acted within its discretion in finding the request overbroad and unduly burdensome.
- The court affirmed the jury’s verdict for WWP on trademark-related claims and upheld the damages award based on misdirected donations.
- The court affirmed injunctive relief in principle but vacated portions of the injunction as overbroad, including the blanket requirement to remove WWFS’s website, and remanded for a narrower order.

## Legal Principles

- Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; courts may deny discovery requests that impose substantial burden relative to likely probative value under Rule 26.
- Likelihood of confusion is assessed under a multifactor analysis; evidence of actual confusion can strongly support infringement, including in charitable fundraising contexts.
- Trademark damages need not be proven with mathematical certainty; reasonable estimates are permitted where the defendant’s conduct makes precision difficult, and disputes about an expert’s assumptions often go to weight rather than admissibility.
- Injunctions in trademark cases must be narrowly tailored to prevent confusion and should not impose restrictions broader than necessary; courts should prefer targeted measures over blanket prohibitions when narrower relief can address the harm.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld liability and a damages award for misdirected charitable donations caused by confusingly similar branding and online fundraising, affirmed limits on overbroad donor-record discovery, and required the district court to narrow an injunction that went further than necessary by effectively eliminating the defendant’s website rather than tailoring relief to reduce confusion.


WWP, Inc. v. Wounded Warriors Fam. Support, Inc., 628 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2011)