AUDI V. D`AMATO

AUDIV. D’AMATO

Audiv. D’amato

Accordingto the common law and also the federal law, the trademark sign shouldbe used to mark and act as a unique symbol to identify specificgoods. Any breach of law in relation to trade mark laws may lead to afirm being charged with unfair competition and also infringement oftrademark laws by the authorities. Additionally, the firm may also besued by the company that its trademark is believed to have beencompromised. Moreover, similar trademarks being used by the samecompanies would lead to confusion among the consumers on the specificproduct being consumed. As a result, one firm would end up losingpart of its market share. An ideal example is the case between AudiAG v. D’Amato. The case revolved around the issue where by Audi AGsold cars under the registered trademarks of AUDI. In addition to theQUATTRO brand. However, the D ‘Amato had put up a subscriptionsdubbed “audisport.com (Blakeslee, 2012).&nbspE-mailaddresses were also offered to people in addition to provision ofadvertising services. As a result, AUDI whom were the plaintiffs suedfor dilution, cyber squatting, trademark dress infringement, falsedesignation of the manufacturer and misguiding advertising.

Inreply, the defendant used the limitations statute, estoppels,abandonment, lache and acquiescence. They also claimed that they hadgot permissions from the plaintiffs through emails. However, thecourt dismissed all the defendants’ claims terming them asmisguided. An ideal example being the claim by the defendantsclaiming that they had a contract with the plaintiff to use theirtrademarks. As a consequence of the actions, AUDI stood to losecustomer confidence in addition to an erosion of its car sales(Scott, 2007).&nbspThedefendants were accused of dilution of the plaintiff’s marketshare. Additionally, the defendants exploited the goodwill of AUDIthat is a well known world brand. Moreover, the court declared thedefendant sole purpose was only to divert the customers from AUDI.Finally, the plaintiff was awarded the attorney fees and that wasalso upheld by the appellant court. The defendants the D’Amato werefound culpable of unfair completion practices that law had focused onto protect interest of investors. Moreover, the trademarks are usedto identify the various products in the market hence any confusionamong two firms would be detrimental to either of the firms(Patterson, 2009). Moreover, the laches could not cushion thedefendants from the trademark infringements charges.

Tosummarize, it is important for the law to remain clear so as helpsolve cases of trademarks infringements among various firms. Thiswill help reduce the unfair competition in the market increasingefficiency.

References

Blakeslee,M. R. (2012).&nbspInternetcrimes, torts, and scams: Investigation and remedies.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Patterson,T. E., &amp American Bar Association. (2009).&nbspHandlingthe business emergency: Temporary restraining orders and preliminaryinjunctions.Chicago, Ill: Tort Trial &amp Insurance Practice Section, ABA.

Scott,M. D., &amp Aspen Publishers. (2007).&nbspScotton information technology law.Frederick, MD: Wolters Kluwer Law &amp Business.