Unlimited Collision LLC v. Ultimate Collision LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01590
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Unlimited Collision LLC, No. CV-25-01590-PHX-SHD

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ultimate Collision LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Unlimited Collision LLC’s 16 (“Unlimited”) Motions for Preliminary Injunction and for Limited Expedited Discovery, 17 (Docs. 10, 14.) The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 18 and 1338, and venue is proper in this District. Having held a hearing on the fully briefed 19 motions on June 3, 2025, (see Doc. 22), the Court grants in part the Motion for 20 Preliminary Injunction and denies the Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery, for the 21 reasons that follow. 22 Unlimited and Defendant Ultimate Collision, LLC (“Ultimate”) are both 23 recreational vehicle and automobile repair service businesses located in Phoenix, Arizona. 24 (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 12–13, 15.) Unlimited asserts that when a user Googles the keyword “Unlimited 25 Collision,” the user sees a headline1 on Google Ads containing “Unlimited Collision,” but 26 1 In its motion, Unlimited explains that Google Ad headlines are “short, attention- 27 grabbing phrases that appear at the top of a Sponsored Ad” as one of the “first thing users see,” and that “Google recommends that the headlines clearly state what the business or 28 product is about.” (Doc. 10 at 6–7.) Defendants Ultimate and Sunny Side Az RV Repair, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) do not dispute this. 1 the headline’s accompanying link directs customers to Ultimate’s website. Ultimate argues 2 that this situation creates a strong likelihood of confusion, giving rise to a claim for 3 trademark infringement. (Doc. 10 at 5–6.) Cf. Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. 4 Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1057 (9th Cir. 1999) (“In the Internet context, in particular, entering 5 a web site takes little effort—usually one click from a linked site or a search engine’s list; 6 thus, Web surfers are more likely to be confused as to the ownership of a web site than 7 traditional patrons of a brick-and-mortar store would be of a store’s ownership.”). 8 Unlimited therefore requests that the Court enjoin Defendants from (1) using Unlimited’s 9 name or derivative names “Unlimited Collision,” “Unlimited Collision, LLC,” or 10 “Unlimited Collision & RV” (“Unlimited’s Marks”)2 in the headlines of Defendants’ 11 Google Ads; and (2) using these same names as keywords in Defendants’ Google Ads. 12 (See Doc. 10 at 1–2.) 13 In their response to Unlimited’s motions, Defendants initially asserted that they “are 14 not presently aware of how those ads came to be, and their investigation has not yet yielded 15 satisfactory results.” (Doc. 19 at 1–2.) At the hearing, Defendants updated the Court on 16 their investigation efforts and explained that the Google Ads headlines utilizing 17 Unlimited’s Marks, but linking to Ultimate’s website, were generated by Google due to a 18 “bug” in Google’s algorithm for dynamic ads. Defendants also informed the Court they 19 have stopped placing dynamic ads to avoid this result. 20 In light of these facts, and without waiving their defenses, at the hearing Defendants 21 stipulated to a preliminary injunction enjoining them and their agents from purchasing 22 Google Ads that utilize Unlimited’s Marks in the headlines, including those generated via 23 dynamic ads. Defendants opposed, however, Unlimited’s second form of requested relief 24 regarding the use of Unlimited’s Marks as keywords, arguing this relief is overbroad 25 because it specifically precludes clearly labeled competitive keyword advertising, which is 26 permitted in the Ninth Circuit. See Lerner & Rowe PC v. Brown Engstrand & Shely LLC, 27 119 F.4th 711, 722–24 (9th Cir. 2024) (finding that where a defendant bought a plaintiff’s

28 2 Unlimited alleges these are protectable common law trademarks, (Doc. 10 at 8), and, for purposes of this motion, Defendants do not dispute this, (see Doc. 19 at 1). 1 mark as a keyword, there was no likelihood of confusion when the defendant used clearly- 2 labeled advertising which did not include the plaintiff’s mark); see also J. Thomas 3 McCarthy, 4 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 25A:7 (5th ed. 2025) 4 (“[t]hree federal Circuit courts of appeal,” including the Ninth Circuit, “have held that there 5 is no likelihood of confusion if all that defendant has done is use another's mark as a 6 keyword to trigger an ad for defendant in which the plaintiff's trademark does not appear”). 7 “The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions 8 of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 9 390, 395 (1981). Here, a preliminary injunction prohibiting the utilization of Unlimited’s 10 Marks in Defendants’ Google Ads headlines—including when such utilization is the result 11 of the purchase of dynamic ads—is appropriate based on the stipulation of the parties. But 12 at this stage, no additional relief is warranted. See United States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 13 464 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A preliminary injunction should be narrowly tailored to remedy the 14 specific harm alleged.”). 15 Turning to Unlimited’s Motion for Limited Expedited Discovery, both parties 16 agreed at the hearing that, given the stipulated preliminary injunctive relief and 17 Defendants’ ongoing efforts to investigate and stop the Google Ad results at issue, 18 expedited discovery is unnecessary. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED that Unlimited’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 10) is 21 granted in part. Until further order of this Court, Defendants and their agents are enjoined 22 from (a) using the marks “Unlimited Collision,” “Unlimited Collision, LLC,” or 23 “Unlimited Collision & RV” in the headlines of their Google Ads, and (b) purchasing 24 dynamic advertising that results in Unlimited’s Marks appearing in the headlines of 25 Defendants’ Google Ads. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Unlimited’s Motion for Limited || Expedited Discovery (Doc. 14) is DENIED. 3 Dated this 4th day of June, 2025. 4 5 /

8 H le Sharad H. Desai 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-