Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided April 9, 2025·No. 6:24-cv-01578·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ASPIRE HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1578-JSS-UAM

ASPIRE MGT LLC,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER

The parties have filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction, (Dkt. 78), notifying the court that they have reached an agreement to settle this matter. As part of that settlement agreement, they seek entry of the stipulated Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction attached to their motion. (Id.) Upon consideration, for the reasons that follow, the court grants the joint motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 requires “[e]very order granting an injunction” to “state the reasons why [the injunction] issued,” “state [the] terms [of the injunction] specifically,” and “describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to [a] complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required” by the injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1). “The [c]ourt issues the injunction set forth below because [Defendant] has consented to its terms and because its issuance obviates the need for any further litigation.” See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Rivers, 272 F.R.D. 607, 608 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Chathas v. Local 134 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 233 F.3d 508, 513 (7th Cir. 2000)). “The [c]ourt additionally finds that the terms of the injunction are set forth with specificity and that the acts restrained or required are described in

sufficient detail to ‘apprise those within its scope of the conduct that is being proscribed.’” See id. (quoting Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1185 (11th Cir. 2010)). In addition, “[d]istrict courts should approve consent decrees so long as they are not unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, or contrary to public policy.” Stovall v. City of Cocoa, 117 F.3d 1238, 1240 (11th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). Upon

review of the parties’ Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction, the court finds that it is not unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, or contrary to public policy. (See Dkt. 78 at 4–14.) Accordingly:

1. The parties’ joint motion (Dkt. 78) is GRANTED. 2. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot and the Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines and to close this case. 3. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, and to furnish copies of this Order to the Clerk of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for consideration in the appeal of this matter, case number 25-10135. 4. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction below. 5. The following Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction is ENTERED: CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Plaintiff, Aspire Health Partners, Inc. (“Aspire”) and Defendant, Aspire MGT LLC (“AML”), (collectively “the Parties”) hereby stipulate to the entry of a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction as follows. 1. Aspire is a Florida Not-for-Profit corporation with a principal place of business at 5151 Adanson Street, Orlando, FL 32804.

2. AML is a Florida Limited Liability Company with an address of 338 Whitesville Road, Jackson, NJ 08527. 3. Aspire filed a state court action against AML on July 30, 2024, for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting. (Dkt. 1-1.) The state court action sought to enforce Aspire’s trademarks for ASPIRE, ASPIRE

HEALTH, and ASPIRE HEALTH PARTNERS as used in connection with a wide variety of health care services. The foregoing marks are protected by common law rights in addition to the following six Florida State Trademark Registrations: T19000000125; T19000000126; T19000000185; T19000000186; T21000000273; and T21000000274. (Dkt. 1-1 at Exs. A-F.)

4. Aspire asserts the Aspire Marks are infringed by AML’s use of ASPIRE, ASPIRE HEALTH, and ASPIRE HEALTH GROUP as used in connection with health care services, including nursing home and post-acute care services. 5. AML removed the state court action to this court via a Notice of Removal filed on August 29, 2024. (Dkt. 1.) Following the Notice of Removal, Aspire filed its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. 16.) AML opposed Aspire’s motion. (Dkt. 28.) 6. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted, in part, Aspire’s

Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. 51.) In its order, the court noted that Aspire had presented significant evidence of actual and ongoing confusion among the consuming public as a result of AML’s use of its marks. 7. In view of this confusion, this court hereby grants a permanent injunction, as set forth below, enjoining and restraining AML and its Affiliates,

officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees from directly or indirectly engaging in the acts of trademark infringement detailed in the Verified Complaint. (Dkt. 1-1.) ACCORDINGLY: 1. “Accused Marks” shall mean “the wordmarks, ‘Aspire,’ ‘Aspire Health,’

and ‘Aspire Health Group,’ and the AML Design, as such marks are used by AML alone or in combination with other terms or marks, including as used in any web domain name, business entity name, fictitious name (such as a d/b/a), AML Websites, signage, advertising, promotion, license, registration, or similar document, official record, or the like and any trademarks, including wordmarks, designs or logos,

used by any AML Party that are a colorable imitation of or are confusingly similar to ‘Aspire,’ ‘Aspire Health,’ and ‘Aspire Health Partners.’” 2. “Affiliate” shall mean, with respect to a Party, “any entity that directly or indirectly owns or controls, is owned or controlled by; or is under common ownership or control with the Party; and the Party’s predecessors, successors, successors-in-interest, and assigns.” As used in this definition, “ownership” and “control” mean: “1) possession, or the right to possession, of at least 50% of the voting stock of the entity; 11) the power to direct the management and policies of the entity; 111) the power to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors of the entity; or iv) the right to receive 50% or more of the profits or earnings of the entity.” For clarity, after an entity is transferred from the control of AML or any AML Affiliate, AML will not be responsible for acts by the transferred entity. If any AML Party transfers ownership or control that removes an entity from being an Affiliate under this definition, the AML Party shall notify the transferee of such ownership or control of this Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction and its obligations. 3. “AHCA” shall mean “the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration.” 4, “AML Affiliate” shall mean “any AML Affiliate that does, or may in the future, operate any skilled nursing facility or health care facility in Florida or Georgia or otherwise do business in Florida or Georgia, engage in Business Registration, or advertise, promote, or publicly operate in relation to Healthcare in Florida or Georgia.” 5. “AML Design” shall mean “the following design mark used by AML or ASPlRe any AML Party: HEALTH GROUP)» 6. “AML Party” shall mean “AML or any AML Affiliate.”

-5-

7.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC (Aspire Health Partners, Inc. v. Aspire MGT LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Florida
117 F.3d 1238 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Brown v. Alabama Department of Transportation
597 F.3d 1160 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
Security & Exchange Commission v. Rivers
272 F.R.D. 607 (M.D. Florida, 2011)