Trademark Law Updates | New Judicial Opinions
January 12, 2009
NY District Court Sides with Audi in Infringement Suit Against Car Recycling Company
Audi AG v. Shokan Coachworks, Inc.
No. 1:07-CV-00173, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, 11/13/2008
Holding:
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has ruled that Shokan Coachworks, Inc., ("Shokan"), an Audi vehicle recycling facility, infringed the "Audi" marks and logo of plaintiff Audi AG ("Audi"). Considering the strength of the "AUDI" mark, that defendants’ use was identical to Audi’s mark, and that the parties were in competitive proximity, the district court found as a matter of law that Shokan’s use of the email signature block, “Shokan Audi Parts” created a likelihood of consumer confusion. Accordingly, the district court granted Audi's motion for summary judgment with regard to Audi's trademark infringement claim over Shiokan's signature block, “Shokan Audi Parts.” On the other hand, because questions of fact remained regarding the length of time the Audi logo appeared on Shokan's website, as well as Shokan’s knowledge regarding same, the district court held that it could not decide as a matter of law that the logo’s existence on the website created a likelihood of consumer confusion, or that defendants acted in bad faith in placing the Logo on the website. Hence, the district court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Audi's motion for summary judgment on its trademark infringement claims.
Detailed Summary:
Presented before the district court in this trademark infringement action were cross motions for summary judgment by plaintiffs Audi and Volkswagen of America, Inc. (“Volkswagen”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) and by defendants Shokan and John H. Smith (“Smith”) (collectively “defendants”). Opinion, p. 1.
By way of background, plaintiffs’ complaint involved defendants’ alleged improper use of certain of plaintiffs’ registered trademarks, including the name “AUDI” as well as the “AUDI RING” logo. (“the Audi Marks”). Among others, plaintiffs’ in this action were (1) trademark and trade dress dilution in violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and (2) federal…
To continue reading this article, subscribe now
It's FREE and only takes seconds