EdFed.com sues EdFed.org

EdFed, a student loan company, has recently filed a lawsuit against its competitors for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et. seq. The company alleges that its competitors have used the same or similar mark as EdFed's federally registered mark, causing confusion among consumers and diluting the value of the EdFed mark. The case is currently pending in federal court, but EdFed can rely on previous cases to support its claims.

The first cause of action in the lawsuit alleges trademark infringement. EdFed argues that the defendants' actions are likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the value of the EdFed mark. This cause of action is similar to the case of Audi AG v. D'Amato, in which the defendant's use of "Four Rings" mark was found likely to cause confusion with Audi's registered "Four Ring" mark.

The second cause of action is common law unfair competition, where EdFed claims that the defendants' actions have unjustly enriched them and caused damage to EdFed. The company is seeking punitive damages based on allegations that the defendants acted willfully, maliciously, and oppressively. This cause of action is similar to the case of Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine Ltd. v. U.S. Distillers Products Corp., where the court awarded punitive damages against the defendant for unfair competition.

The third cause of action is for unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et. seq. EdFed argues that the defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the course of their business, violating California law. The company is seeking restitution and injunctive relief to prevent future unfair competition. This cause of action is similar to the case of Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., where the defendant's advertising constituted unfair competition under California law.

To support its claims, EdFed can also rely on previous cases. One such case is Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, where Haute Diggity Dog's use of Louis Vuitton's trademarks diluted the distinctiveness of those marks. This case demonstrates that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark does not have to be identical or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's mark in order to be infringing.

Another relevant case is Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., where the court found that Volkswagen's use of a gold-colored emblem was likely to cause confusion among consumers and therefore constituted trademark infringement. The court also found that Volkswagen's use of the gold emblem constituted unfair competition under California law. This case demonstrates that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark can constitute both trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Finally, EdFed can also look to the case of In re Bose Corp., where the Federal Circuit held that a trademark registration could be cancelled if the mark was not used in commerce at the time of registration. This case demonstrates that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark in commerce is a necessary element of a trademark infringement claim.

In conclusion, EdFed has a strong case against the defendants for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violations of California's Business & Professions Code. The company can rely on a number of cases to support its claims and demonstrate that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark does not have to be identical or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's mark in order to be infringing, that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark can constitute both trademark infringement and unfair competition, and that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark in commerce is a necessary element of a trademark infringement claim. It will be interesting to see how the court rules on each of the

EdFed, a student loan company, has filed a lawsuit against its competitors for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violations of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et. seq. The case is currently pending in federal court.

The first cause of action alleges trademark infringement. EdFed claims that the defendants used the same or similar mark as EdFed's federally registered mark. EdFed argues that this conduct is likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the value of the EdFed mark. The case is similar to a previous case, Audi AG v. D'Amato, in which the court found that the defendant's use of "Four Rings" mark was likely to cause confusion with Audi's registered "Four Ring" mark.

The second cause of action is common law unfair competition. EdFed argues that the defendants' actions have unjustly enriched them and caused damage to EdFed. EdFed seeks punitive damages based on allegations that the defendants acted willfully, maliciously, and oppressively. This cause of action is similar to the case of Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine Ltd. v. U.S. Distillers Products Corp., in which the court awarded punitive damages against the defendant for unfair competition.

The third cause of action is for unfair competition under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et. seq. EdFed claims that the defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the course of their business, which violated California law. EdFed seeks restitution and injunctive relief to prevent future unfair competition. This cause of action is similar to the case of Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., in which the court found that the defendant's advertising constituted unfair competition under California law.

Overall, EdFed's lawsuit alleges violations of federal and state law, and seeks both monetary and injunctive relief. It remains to be seen how the court will rule on each of the causes of action, but EdFed may be able to rely on previous cases to support its claims.

One such case is Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007). In that case, Louis Vuitton sued Haute Diggity Dog, a company that produced pet toys that were parodies of Louis Vuitton's famous handbags. The court found that Haute Diggity Dog's use of Louis Vuitton's trademarks was not likely to cause confusion among consumers, but the court did find that Haute Diggity Dog's use of Louis Vuitton's trademarks diluted the distinctiveness of those marks. This case is relevant to EdFed's claims of trademark infringement because it demonstrates that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark does not have to be identical or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's mark in order to be infringing.

Another case that is relevant to EdFed's claims is Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006). In that case, Au-Tomotive Gold sued Volkswagen for trademark infringement and unfair competition based on Volkswagen's use of a gold-colored emblem on its cars. The court found that Volkswagen's use of the gold emblem was likely to cause confusion among consumers and therefore constituted trademark infringement. The court also found that Volkswagen's use of the gold emblem constituted unfair competition under California law. This case is relevant to EdFed's claims because it demonstrates that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark can constitute both trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Finally, EdFed could also look to the case of In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009), for support. In that case, the Federal Circuit held that a trademark registration could be cancelled if the mark was not used in commerce at the time of registration. This case is relevant to EdFed's claims because it demonstrates that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark in commerce is a necessary element of a trademark infringement claim.

In conclusion, EdFed has a strong case against the defendants for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and violations of California's Business & Professions Code. The company can rely on a number of cases to support its claims, including cases that demonstrate that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark does not have to be identical or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's mark in order to be infringing, that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark can constitute both trademark infringement and unfair competition, and that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark in commerce is a necessary element of a trademark infringement claim.

In addition to these cases, EdFed can also look to the case of Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Krishan Agarwal, in which the court found that the defendant's use of Rolex's registered mark in its domain name was likely to cause confusion and constituted trademark infringement. This case is relevant to EdFed's claims because it demonstrates that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark in its business practices, such as using the trademark in a domain name, can also constitute trademark infringement.

Furthermore, EdFed can rely on the case of Johnson & Johnson v. American National Red Cross, in which the court found that the defendant's use of Johnson & Johnson's registered Red Cross trademark constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. This case is relevant to EdFed's claims because it demonstrates that a defendant's use of a plaintiff's trademark can constitute both trademark infringement and unfair competition, and that a plaintiff can seek monetary and injunctive relief in such cases.

Overall, EdFed's lawsuit highlights the importance of protecting trademarks and preventing unfair competition in the marketplace. The outcome of this case will have implications not only for EdFed and its competitors but for all companies seeking to protect their intellectual property. It remains to be seen how the court will rule on each of the causes of action, but EdFed can rely on a number of cases to support its claims and increase its chances of success.

Click here to see the full article