Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.
PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. US FIDELIS, INC. and CRESCENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
This is another example of a hotly debated legal arena and the complications that can arise. The best practice for your business is to not use a competitor’s name in any products, services, or advertising unless you have legal clearance. There may be comparative advertising and other appropriate fair uses for using the name of a competitor, but in today’s online environment it is wise to not do so unless you are prepared to defend the use through the expensive process of litigating the case in federal court. Keep in mind that most review websites are now being recognized as havens for trademark infringement.
The Plaintiff is a corporation organized in Arizona. The Defendants are an auto warranty company located in Missouri. The Defendants are allegedly infringing on the Plaintiff’s “autolife” trademark by selling automobile additive products using the trademark term in its product names.
The lawsuit alleges unfair competition and false designation of origin, dilution by blurring or tarnishment, cyberpiracy, common law trademark infringement, fraudulent misrepresentation, injury to business reputation, and tortious interference with contract. Plaintiff has requested injunctive relief, the disgorgement of gains and profits, compensatory damages in the amount no less that $500,000, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1350.