Movado Group, Inc. v. Matagorda Ventures, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18196 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2000).
Factual Background Edit
Plaintiff, a well-known watch manufacturer, sued defendants, operators of an online watch-retail store, alleging assorted trademark and unfair competition claims based on: (1) defendants' reselling of plaintiff's MOVADO and ESQ. watches with a nonfactory warranty, and (2) defendants' use of plaintiff's CONCORD mark on their website and associated metatags when defendants did not offer CONCORD watches.
Trial Court Proceedings Edit
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied both motions on plaintiff's first claim, finding a genuine issue of fact of whether defendants' sales of MOVADO and ESQ. watches were "authorized" because defendants purchased the watches from authorized dealers that allegedly resold them with plaintiff's knowledge.
But the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its second trademark claim regarding defendants' unauthorized use of its CONCORD mark. Defendants' listing of the CONCORD watches on its website as one of the watches available for sale, despite the fact that it did not sell those watches, was likened to the classic "bait and switch" scheme. Defendants advertised the CONCORD watches on its site, with the hope of attracting customers who would purchase other available watches.
The court denied summary judgment, however, on plaintiff’s claim concerning defendant's use of the CONCORD mark in metatags, because plaintiff failed to present evidence that the CONCORD name was actually used in metatags associated with the defendants' website.
- 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).