Thursday, December 22, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


TIFFANY, LLC v. YAOQIANG, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (MIAMI)
1:11-CV-24116-UU
FILED: 11/15/2011

Major companies are stepping up their efforts at enforcing their intellectual property rights.

Tiffany is the world famous manufacturer and distributor of high quality luxury goods. The Defendants all allegedly reside in the Peoples Republic of China. These websites offer for sale counterfeit and trademark infringing Tiffany-branded goods to consumers without license or other authorization.

Plaintiff alleges trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, and cybersquatting. Plaintiff requests that Defendants be permanently enjoined from continuing to use the infringing marks, an award of all profits and damages resulting from Defendants’ infringing activities, attorneys’ fees and any other relief that the court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1538.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


YAHALA TRADING COMPANY, LLC v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (DETROIT)
2:11-CV-14794
FILED: 10/31/2011

We have seen a number of cases in which trademark infringement reports were delivered to eBay in error. The possibility of proceeding for relief is worth evaluating.

The Plaintiff started selling replacement auto parts for the Hyundai car on eBay. Hyundai alleges trademark infringement and has adversely affected the Plaintiff’s ability to sell through eBay.

Plaintiff alleges tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition, and declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Prayer for relief requests for Defendants to be permanently enjoined from continuing to engage in the following conduct: misrepresenting ownership of intellectual property, acts intended to interfere with Plaintiff’s future contractual relationships, and unfair competition. Plaintiff requests to be awarded all costs and expenses, attorneys’ fees and any other relief that the court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1531.

Monday, October 31, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


CARGROUP HOLDINGS, LLC v. COOPS CARS, LLC
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (TRENTON)
3:11-CV-05697
FILED: 9/30/2011

Part of the benefit of monitoring trademark registrations is to pick up on a potential conflict. In this instance, the Defendant apparently registered the trademark without the Plaintiff becoming aware of the action and this has resulted in a significant dispute.

The Plaintiff has brought a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and the cancellation of a federally registered trademark. The Plaintiff claims that it has been using the term “we buy any car” and the Defendant now claims to own the trademark to the term and is attempting to prevent the Plaintiff from using it in business.

Plaintiff sues for a declaration of non-infringement and fair use and requests injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and such other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1529.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits

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.


STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN v. LEXISNEXIS
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN (MADISON)
3:11-CV-00586
FILED: 8/19/2011

Keep in mind that there is no easy way to learn of all trademarks and that is why a “trademark clearance” process is often followed before new terms or, as is seen here, images are used in commerce.

The State Bar of Wisconsin claims a trademark in an image that depicts a pillar. LexisNexis is alleged to have recently adopted a similar mark and is using it on its online directory of attorneys.

Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and common law trademark infringement. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief and reasonable actual attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1519.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


APRIL I. GARDNER and STYLEMINT, LLC v. BEACHMINT, INC., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS (BOSTON)
1:11-CV-11307
FILED: 7/22/2011

Even the Olsen twins are not doing a good job clearing trademarks, it appears. If these businesses are actually selling competing products or services then the Plaintiff is going to probably end up prevailing. Make sure you get those business and product names cleared by your trademark attorney.

The Plaintiff owns an online business which goes by the name of “Stylemint” and operates at www.stylemint.net. The Olsen sisters allegedly entered into a partnership to launch a competing “fashion enterprise” using www.stylemint.com and “Stylemint” as its business name.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, false designation or origin, and unfair competition and requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, actual damages, treble damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees with interest. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1515.


CARRIER CORPORATION v. REPLY! INC.
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS (SPRINGFIELD)
3:11-CV-30189
FILED: 7/1/ 2011

This is a surprisingly common business tactic. Be very aware of advertisers using your business name to generate traffic which they then convert to a lead to sell to competitors.


Carrier Corporation is one of the world’s largest manufacturers and distributors of heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems. The Defendant operates a web based business, the primary objective of which is to generate leads. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is attracting homeowners to its home improvement website by using the “Carrier” name throughout its website.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, cyberpiracy, common law trademark infringement and trade meaning infringement, unjust enrichment, conversion, and unfair or deceptive acts and practices. Carrier Corporation requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of the infringing domain name, actual damages, treble damages, costs and expenses. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1516.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits

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.


EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P. v. JAMES M. BIRD
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-04352
FILED: 6/27/2011

This is a very typical misuse of a trademark. Just place the trademark in your content and Google will start seeing your website as an appropriate result when someone is conducting a search on the targeted word. Be careful not to use trademarks, even seemingly common names can be trademark protected.

Edward Jones provides financial services to investors all over the United States and has done so since 1922. The Defendant is using the “Edward Jones” name in the content on its website to generate business for trades in the futures market.

Claims in the lawsuit include false designation of origin, unfair competition, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff requests that the Court award a temporary restraining order against the Defendant, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, an award of Defendant’s profits derived from the infringing use of the Plaintiff’s mark, compensatory damages, destruction of all infringing materials, and an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1504.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


THE LEARNING COMPANY, A DIVISION OF HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY and HMH CONSUMER COMPANY LTD. v. ZYNGA INC.
DISTRICT OF MASSACUSSETTS (BOSTON)
1:11-CV-10894
FILED: 5/18/2011

Joint development projects are going to be governed primarily by the written contract between the parties. If there is no contract, you will often get into all kinds of disputes about the ownership of the new intellectual property that has been developed. In this instance, there appears to be a dispute about either the ownership, or the existence of a license to use, the “Oregon Trail” name. The Plaintiff could very well still own the name in the context of online games and the Defendant might, depending on the facts of this case, have a license to use the name. These issues are generally spelled out very clearly in written joint development contracts.

The Learning Company and Zynga are game developers and the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant is about to launch a new online game named “Oregon Trail”, which is the name the Plaintiff already uses for an existing game. The parties were working together at some point on jointly developing the game that is now allegedly being launched solely by Zynga.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, an award of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1500.


EMERGENCY ESSENTIALS v. NAMECHEAP and BLUEHOST
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:11-CV-00411
FILED: 5/04/2011

This is a situation where any website, web host, domain name registrar or the like needs to be very careful. Once you receive notice of an alleged trademark infringement you must take action to stop providing services to that alleged infringer or your business may be liable as a contributory infringer.

Plaintiff Emergency Essentials is a company specializing in selling food storage and other emergency preparedness supplies. Someone registered the “eemergencyessentials.com” domain name and launched a website competing against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims registered trademarks in the name and has sued the domain name registrar and the web host on the basis that they had knowledge of the infringement and failed and refused to stop the infringement and continued to provide aid to the infringer.

Emergency Essentials alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, contributory trademark infringement, unfair practices, deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and negligence. The prayer for relief requests injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, ordering Defendants to perform corrective advertising, statutory damages in the amount of $100,000 per each counterfeit mark, statutory damages up to $150,000 per violation of the Utah E-Commerce Integrity Act, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1501.


Thursday, May 5, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


PINEHURST, LLC v. US GOLF TRIPS, LLC
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
1:11-CV-00296
FILED: 4/15/2011

Most people would think that the name of a geographic location is not trademark protectable. This is a good example of an instance in which such a name is protectable by trademark. There is a raging debate as to whether metatags influence search results. But as you can see from this case, people are still getting sued for using trademarks in metatags, and avoiding lawsuits is a big part of being successful in your online endeavors.

Pinehurst is the famous golf resort located in North Carolina. Defendant US Golf Trips is a Virginia limited liability company operating out of Virginia Beach, VA. The Defendant is alleged to be using the “Pinehurst” trademarks on its web properties in an attempt to sell its golf services and golf travel and accommodation packages. Pinehurst alleges that that Defendant is also using its trademark in its metatags.

The lawsuit alleges trafficking in services bearing a counterfeit mark, infringement of registered marks, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, common law service mark infringement, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Pinehurst requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the transfer of rights to any infringing domain names, an accounting and payment of profits, actual damages, maximum statutory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1489.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: April 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


FREIGHTQUOTE.COM, INC. v. FREIGHT-BASE SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
NORTHERN DISCTRICT OF ILLINOIS (EASTERN DIVISION)
1:11-CV-02121
FILED: 03/28/2011

This case is a perfect example of a business getting a trademark in what appears to be a generic term and then using it to enforce exclusive rights to that common term across the entire industry. “Freight quote” is the term that anyone looking to get a quote for shipping freight would often enter into the search function of a search engine. The potential customer is not searching for a particular business but a general solution for its generic search request. However, trademarks have been issued by the USPTO, as this case exhibits, which vest ownership of such a generic term with one company within an industry. This lawsuit will likely precipitate a challenge to the trademark registration itself if the registration is not older than 5 years. From a practical standpoint, there is little chance you will know about the existence of a trademark when using generic or inherently descriptive terms online, but if you ignore a “cease and desist” you can get sued.

Freightquote provides freight shipping and management services. The Defendants are various competitors using the term “freightquote”, which the Plaintiff claims is protected by trademark.

Freightquote.com alleges unfair competition and false designation or origin, trademark infringement, violation of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, common law trademark infringement, and violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The prayer for relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, statutory damages, transfer of the infringing domain names, compensatory damages, and other such relief the Court deems just. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1480.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


AIR802, LLC v. AMAZON.COM, INC.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)
2:11-CV-00341
FILED: 2/25/2011

It is hard to believe that Amazon would intentionally use a trademark and sell a competing product. If it is doing so, someone internally at Amazon has likely made a big mistake. My experience has been that Amazon will respond and react appropriately when advised of a trademark issue like this. Before going off and filing a lawsuit make sure that you have notified Amazon and attempted to address and resolve the problem. These types of situations sometimes arise because of the existence of automated processes and not any type of bad faith.

AIR802 manufactures high quality wireless and cable products. Plaintiff alleges that it entered into a revenue sharing agreement with Amazon and when the Plaintiff ended its relationship Amazon continued to use its trademark to sell a competing product manufactured by Cisco Systems.

Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, counterfeiting, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. The prayer for relief requests permanent injunctive relief, destruction of all materials bearing the infringing designation, actual damages, treble damages, an accounting of profits, attorneys’ fees and costs and such other and further relief the Court deems equitable. DTraverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1474.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2011 - Trademark Infringement Lawsuits


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.


GREENBERG SMOKED TURKEYS, INC. v. VALUECLICK, INC.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (TYLER)
6:11-CV-00038
FILED: 1/20/2011

Sometimes these automated programs for building advertisements can get you in trouble. Evidently no one realized that “Greenberg Turkeys” is a trademarked name. Automating a process for generating advertisements and purchasing keywords on the Google AdWords system is a high-risk practice.

Greenberg Smoked Turkeys is a business involved in making and selling smoked turkeys. Defendant is engaged in the operation of providing Internet shopping services and is triggering ads based upon the “Greenberg” trademark and allegedly using the Plaintiff’s trademarked name in the title of its AdWords advertisements.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, and trademark dilution. Plaintiff demands permanent injunctive relief against the Defendant, actual damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1470.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2011 - Trademark Infringement Cases

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.


SELECT MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC, ET AL. v. D AND D MARKETING, INC. and DMITRY FOMICHEV
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:10-CV-10008
FILED: 12/29/2010

There certainly exist some defenses to keying ads off of trademark names, although most courts find that this is trademark infringement. Using a competitor’s name in the title of an ad on AdWords, or even in the body of the ad, is close to a slam dunk situation for trademark infringement.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, a lead generation company and the owner of the company, are purchasing Plaintiff’s trademark name as a keyword to trigger its ad in the Google AdWords system, and is actually using the Plaintiff’s trademark name in the title of the advertisement. The Defendant is D and D Marketing, Inc. d/b/a T3Leads and is generating leads for the consumer lending industry.

Counts against Defendants include trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiffs request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1460.


WILLIAM JAWORSKI d/b/a GREAT NORTHERN ENGINEERING v. ROBERT’S HOT TUBS, INC.
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
0:10-CV-04950
FILED: 12/22/2010

These “metatag” trademark infringement claims keep showing up in federal courts. There are many ways, obviously, to optimize a page so that it is a result when a competitor is searched. Google says it does not even pay attention to metadata anymore in terms of generating search results, so if this is true it is difficult to see how a claim is relevant anymore in today’s SEO world. It is likely that some search engines still use metadata for indexing purposes, but that represents an extremely small percentage of searches conducted.

Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors selling hot tubs and related services and supplies. The Defendant is alleged to have placed the Plaintiff’s trademarked names into “metatags” on its website in order to have its site appear in search results when its competitor’s name is searched.
The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff demands preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, statutory damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1461.


Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2010 - Trademark Infringement Cases

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. SHAR PRODUCTS COMPANY v. JUSTSTRINGS.COM, INC. EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (DETROIT) 2:10-CV-14540 FILED: 11/15/2010 SHAR PRODUCTS COMPANY v. GOSTRINGS, LLC EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (DETROIT) 2:10-CV-14538 FILED: 11/15/2010 We continue to see a flow of lawsuits claiming trademark infringement because a competitor is keying ads off of a Plaintiff’s trademark name. It is alleged in these cases that the Defendants are using the trademark name in either the title or body of the advertisement. Needless to say, keying your ads off a trademark name or using the name of a competitor is very risky business. These are two different cases in which the Plaintiff, the recognized leader in the stringed instrument market in North America, is pursuing competitors based upon their alleged use of the Plaintiff’s name for keying ads. Plaintiff is also claiming that the Defendants included its name in the content of the ad to mislead the public into believing that they were the Plaintiff. Both lawsuits allege trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair trade practices, and unfair competition. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, an accounting of Defendants’ profits, actual damages, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief the Court deems just. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1454.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2010 - Trademark Infringement Cases

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.


THE KEY WEST TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION v. ZAZZLE, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (KEY WEST)
4:10-CV-10100
FILED: 10/26/2010

Fantasy Fest is a huge party around Halloween each year in Key West featuring vast quantities of libations and scantily clad, air brush painted attendees. You just wouldn’t get the idea that Key West would worry about a couple of knock-off t-shirts. The bottom line is that every business, including some non-profit government organizations like the Plaintiff, have to protect their trademark or it will be lost. The same applies to your business, although paying a huge amount to file a lawsuit isn’t always necessary to protect your trademark. Keep in mind that you must be policing the web and taking action against those who are infringing on your trademark or you will ultimately lose your rights in your own name.

The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation with a primary goal of helping economic growth and development in Key West, Florida. As part of this effort Plaintiff has continuously promoted and marketed its annual festival services including one under the trademark “Fantasy Fest”, which is a cooperative effort between the Plaintiff, the city of Key West and private businesses in Key West. Zazzle is an online retail store that offers an “on demand” platform that allows anyone to create t-shirts and the like. Plaintiff alleges that Zazzle is selling “Fantasy Fest” related products and claims they are “official” products of Fantasy Fest.

The Plaintiff alleges trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair competition, palming off, false designation of origin or source, trademark dilution, and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief along with actual damages, treble damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1452.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2010 Trademark Infringement Cases

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.


1-800 CONTACTS v. BRANDAN HARNER d/b/a 1800CONTACTS-COUPON.COM
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF UTAH
2:10-CV-00927
FILED: 9/20/2010

If you are an affiliate marketer you must abide by the contract of the advertiser. If nothing at all is said about the use of the advertiser’s trademark name in your advertising then it is likely you are permitted to use the trademark through an implied license theory until you are told that you cannot use it. Resellers have certain rights to use a trademark in describing a product, but as an affiliate marketer you are not a reseller and are governed strictly by the expressed or implied license existing between yourself and the advertiser.

Plaintiff is engaged in the retail sales of contact lenses, including marketing and selling contact lenses via the Internet. Defendant is a Missouri resident operating a website with the Plaintiff’s name included. The website address is www.1800contacts-coupon.com. Defendant was an affiliate marketer of the Plaintiff and the affiliate marketing agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant prohibited the use of domain names with any variation of Plaintiff’s trademark contained within the domain name. Defendant is alleged to also be keying Google AdWords advertising off of Plaintiff’s trademark.

The lawsuit includes counts for cybersquatting, trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, trademark dilution, common law unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of all infringing domain names, an accounting of Defendant’s revenues and profits, an order for Defendant to promulgate corrective advertising, actual damages, statutory damages in the amount of $100,000 per domain name, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1447.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2010 Trademark Infringement Cases


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.


ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. VALUE CITY FURNITURE, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:10-CV-05413
FILED: 8/26/2010

If you are going to use comparative advertising make sure that the underlying data, and the descriptive words used, are not inaccurate, false, or misleading. Otherwise, the use of a competitor’s name will be seen as trademark infringement and not protected under the “fair use doctrine” that permits comparative advertising. The analysis of what is, and what is not, proper comparative advertising is very complex.

Ashley Furniture is a manufacturer of furniture and Value City is a retailer. The Defendant is running online advertisements comparing the prices of Value City Furniture products to those of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is claiming that the comparative advertising is false and the Defendant is therefore infringing its trademark.

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. alleges false advertising, trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, trademark dilution, product disparagement, violation of Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act of the State of Illinois, and violation of Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. They are requesting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an awarding of Defendant’s profits, treble damages, punitive damages, actual damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1446.