Experience
Bridgestone
Apollo Auto Sales & Services, Inc.
Two federal courts recognized the fame of the FIRESTONE mark, given its century-long use, in suits filed by Bridgestone for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, and breach of contract against holdover licensees, related entities, and their owner who unlawfully used the FIRESTONE, FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE, and BRIDGESTONE marks to offer automotive services in Houston, Texas. Bridgestone, represented by Finnegan, was granted summary judgment in both cases.
In the Southern District of Texas, the court granted summary judgment on all claims against one of the entities and its owner in his individual capacity. In the Middle District of Tennessee, the court granted Bridgestone’s motion for summary judgment on the trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition claims. Both courts rejected defendants’ arguments that holdover licensees are exempt from the heightened penalties for counterfeiting, noting the split of authority on the issue. In the Sixth Circuit, a holdover licensee may not be liable for the heightened penalties available for counterfeiting if it continues to use a mark as originally authorized. This represents the minority view and other courts have rejected the holding. The defense thus did not apply in Texas, and the defendants in Tennessee could not rely on this precedent to shield them from liability because one defendant was never a party to any license with Bridgestone and the other was never licensed to use the FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE mark as it did. Both courts held that defendants’ willful conduct—using Bridgestone’s exact federally registered FIRESTONE and FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE marks—entitles Bridgestone to recover the enhanced remedies (to be determined at trial) available for counterfeiting.
Bridgestone v. Apollo Auto Sales & Services, Inc., 3:15-cv-00857, M.D. Tenn., Judges Campbell, Holmes, McCalla
Bridgestone v. Katy Freeway Tire & Automotive, Inc., 4:15-cv-02274, S.D. Tex., Judge Werlein
Patent ownership and licensing dispute dismissed on summary judgment for computer graphics company
S3 Graphics Co. Ltd.
Bridgestone Brands, LLC v. Balkrishna Indus., Ltd.
Bridgestone Brands, LLC
Finnegan achieves victory for Syneron in cellulite patent suit
Syneron Medical Ltd.
Summary judgment of immunity from infringement granted in favor of Accuride Corporation
Accuride Corp.
Summary judgment allows Home Diagnostics Inc. (HDI) to meet the needs of diabetics
Home Diagnostics Inc. (HDI)
Toyota Motor Corp.
No confusion in trademark victory on summary judgment for the American Retirement Association
American Retirement Association
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.