Trademark Attorneys For Professional Photographers’ Association Sued A Competitor For Infringement Of USPTO Registered Trademarks “Image USA” and “Image Expo” Used For Trade Show Services
Los Angeles, CA – Trademark attorneys for Professional Photographers of America, Inc. filed a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, alleging infringement of Professional Photographers’ USPTO registered trademarks for Imaging USA and Imaging Expo. The complaint states that since 1999, Professional Photographers has used the Imaging USA trademark for trade shows in the field of professional photography and has used the Imaging Expo trademark since 2004 for trade shows.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant “Rangefinder intends to use the designation World Imaging Expo for tradeshows in the field of professional photography” and that Plaintiff became aware of the competing tradeshow when it discovered a copy of the World Imaging Expo convention program guide. Professional Photographers also discovered that Rangefinder had filed an intent-to-use trademark application with the USPTO. Professional Photographers asserts that it sent a cease and desist letter to Rangefinder over the use of the World Imaging Expo trademark, but Rangefinder refused to withdraw its pending trademark application or stop using the trademark. Thus the complaint was filed asserting causes of action for federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, false designation of origin and false representation under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and unfair competition under California common law and statutes. The case is titled Professional Photographers of America, Inc. v. Rangefinder Publishing Co., CV08-02324 SVW (C.D. Cal. 2008).
PRACTICE NOTE: A proposed trademark does not have to be identical to another party’s previously registered or used trademark in order to prove infringement. If there is going to be a “likelihood of confusion” between the two trademarks, a Court will enjoin the junior trademark owner’s use of the “confusingly similar” trademark. For example, the trademark Red Shield for insurance services was held to be confusingly similar with the previously registered Blue Shield® trademark.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website, 
“Defendants’ conduct, together with that of currently unknown civil and criminal co-conspirators, is causing T-Mobile to suffer millions of dollars in losses and has caused immediate and irreparable injury to T-Mobile and T-Mobile’s trademarks,” the complaint states. T-Mobile subsidizes the price of the cellular telephone and sells it below cost, but recoups the subsidy from profits earned on the sale of the prepaid airtime cards. Thus, the complaint asserts, if the phones purchased by defendants are not activated on the T-Mobile wireless network, T-Mobile is unable to recoup its costs. The T-Mobile phones are also sold subject to terms and conditions which restrict and limit the sale and use of the phones. By unlocking the phones and not activating them on the T-Mobile network, the defendants are allegedly breaching the contractual terms of purchase. The case is titled T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. All Pro Distributing, Inc., et al., CV08-02691 GW (C.D. Cal. 2008).
The complaint alleges that defendants are selling lower quality imitations of Chanel’s handbags and wallets, which bear counterfeit Chanel trademarks. The complaint asserts that the Defendants are offering the counterfeit goods on their websites: www.gqbags.com and www.ultimatehandbags.com. The websites offer handbags for sale that are substantially less expensive than authentic Chanel products. “The net effect of the Defendants’ actions will be to result in the confusion of consumers who will believe the Defendants’ Counterfeit Goods are genuine goods originating from and approved by Chanel.” Chanel believes that the defendants are engaging in the sale of counterfeit goods intentionally and willfully. The complaint alleges causes of action for trademark infringement and counterfeiting under section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 114, and false designation of origin and unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The case is titled: Chanel, Inc. v. Kimberli Hunter, et al., CV08-02226 GHK (C.D. Cal. 2008).
