A dispute over the use of similar names in the healthcare sector has led to a federal lawsuit, with one organization claiming that another’s branding is likely to cause confusion among professionals and the public. The complaint was filed by Obesity Medicine Association in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 31, 2026, naming the American Diabetes Association as defendant.
According to court documents, Obesity Medicine Association alleges that the American Diabetes Association has engaged in willful trademark infringement by using marks such as “OBESITY ASSOCIATION” and “OBESITY ASSOCIATION A DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION.” The plaintiff asserts that these marks are confusingly similar to its own federally registered trademarks for “OBESITY MEDICINE ASSOCIATION,” which have been used in commerce for over a decade. The complaint states, “Defendant’s unauthorized use in commerce of the OBESITY ASSOCIATION Marks as alleged herein is likely to deceive consumers as to the origin, source, sponsorship, or affiliation of Defendant ADA’s Services.”
The Obesity Medicine Association describes itself as a Colorado not-for-profit corporation that provides educational services, advocacy efforts, networking opportunities, and publishes research related to obesity medicine. Its services are offered under several registered trademarks, including OBESITY MEDICINE ASSOCIATION (Registration No. 7715121) and OBESITY MEDICINE ASSOCIATION (& Design) (Registration No. 5016667). These marks have been promoted through various channels such as websites, social media accounts, print media, banners, and promotional materials.
The complaint details how the American Diabetes Association allegedly began offering similar services under the contested marks after Obesity Medicine Association had established protectable rights. It notes that on or around July 27, 2024, the defendant filed a federal trademark application for “Obesity Association,” which was refused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) due to likelihood of confusion with existing OBESITY MEDICINE ASSOCIATION registrations. Despite this refusal and subsequent correspondence between legal counsel for both parties—including letters dated December 30, 2025; January 30, 2026; and February 24, 2026—the plaintiff claims that the defendant has continued its use of the disputed marks.
The plaintiff argues that these actions have resulted in actual confusion among third parties and alleges willful intent by the defendant to trade on its goodwill. One example cited involves an interaction with the American Academy of Family Physicians where services were reportedly confused between the two organizations. The filing states: “Defendant’s infringing acts as alleged herein have caused and are likely to continue causing confusion…as to the source or origin of ADA’s Services.”
In addition to federal claims under Section 32(1) and Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 & 1125(a)), Obesity Medicine Association brings related state law claims under Virginia’s Trademark Registration and Protection Act (§59.1-92.1 et seq.) and common law unfair competition doctrines. The plaintiff contends that it has no adequate remedy at law due to ongoing harm to its reputation and goodwill.
The relief sought includes preliminary and permanent injunctions barring further use of any confusingly similar marks by American Diabetes Association or its affiliates; abandonment of pending trademark applications containing “Obesity Association” terms; destruction or transfer of all materials displaying those marks; an award of profits gained from alleged unlawful activities (potentially trebled), damages with prejudgment interest for willful infringement; punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
The complaint requests a jury trial on all triable issues. Attorneys representing Obesity Medicine Association are Richard T. Matthews (Williams Mullen—Raleigh office) and Clinton H. Brannon (Williams Mullen—Tysons office). The case is identified as Civil Action No.: 1:26-cv-874.
