Fandom

The IT Law Wiki

Echo Design Group v. Zino Davidoff

32,181pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Talk0 Share

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

Citation Edit

Echo Design Group, Inc. v. Zino Davidoff S.A., 283 F.Supp.2d 963 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (full-text).

Factual Background Edit

Plaintiff makes fashion accessories and home-design goods under the federally registered mark ECHO, which are sold in upscale department stores like Bloomingdales and Saks Fifth Avenue. Defendant Davidoff sells tobacco products and other luxury products, including fragrances. Under license from Davidoff, defendant Lancaster makes and sells fragrances and personal-care products under the mark DAVIDOFF and more recently under the name ECHO DAVIDOFF. Defendant chose the name ECHO DAVIDOFF in May of 2002 after completion of a European marketing study. The ECHO DAVIDOFF products were launched overseas in December 2002, and the only sales in the United States have been in duty-free stores. Defendant planned on releasing the products in the U.S. in February 2004, where they would be sold in stores like Macy’s and Filene’s.

Trial Court Proceedings Edit

Plaintiff sued defendant for trademark infringement and dilution and sought preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to prevent defendant from using the ECHO name on its products. Plaintiff claimed that the ECHO DAVIDOFF products were already available in the U.S. through fragrance-related websites and one store in Hawaii. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants displayed the term ECHO in lettering that mimicked plaintiff’s unique font, and that Davidoff’s website used plaintiff’s full company name, ECHO DESIGN, in promoting their own products.

The court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiff did not demonstrate that defendant’s use of ECHO would cause a likelihood of confusion to support its infringement claim or that its ECHO trademarks were famous and distinctive as required to support its dilution claim.

Finally, the court believed that plaintiff would not suffer irreparable harm because it scheduled the trial for January 12, 2004, before defendant’s planned February 2004 launch of its ECHO brand in the United States.

Source Edit

This page uses content from Finnegan’s Internet Trademark Case Summaries. This entry is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA.

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki