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

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.


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.