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.
CASCADE YARNS INC v. CRAFTS AMERICANA GROUP INCWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (TACOMA)
This is another reminder that trademark infringement lawsuits for merely keying a competing ad off of a trademark are alive and well and happening on a regular basis all over the country.
Plaintiff owns a trademark in a number of yarn related terms that identify its products or services. Defendant is alleged to be keying ads off of the registered trademark terms and presenting competing offers. The claim is that even if there is no confusion at the time that a consumer arrives at Defendant’s website, the use of the trademarks has captured consumers’ initial attention and serves to divert them to the Defendant’s website, where only competing products are offered.
The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition/unfair deceptive acts and practices, and trademark dilution. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and that Defendant be directed to account for all profits and pay compensatory damages, treble damages, actual damages, lost profits, attorney’s fees and costs, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just and appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1389.
TRAFFIC LAW CENTER OF SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC v. BOSLEY AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI (ST. LOUIS)
Ignoring cease and desist letters or demands can end up being an expensive proposition.
Traffic Law Center is a law firm representing the public in traffic related offenses. The Defendant is also a law firm doing the same thing. The Defendant has on his law firm website the phrase “Traffic law center”, but the Plaintiff owns a federally registered trademark under that exact term for the category of legal services. Plaintiff requested that Defendant Bosley cease and desist the use of the allegedly infringing mark but he failed to do so.
The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. The Plaintiff requests permanent injunctive relief, destruction of all goods showing the infringing marks, an accounting of profits, actual damages, treble damages, and reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1388.