Car-Freshner Corp. Sues Getty Images for Trademark Infringement
Plaintiffs claim defendant licenses this and other photos containing
tree designs that are confusingly similar to their own.
On Nov. 9, Car-Freshner Corp. and Julius Samann Ltd. (JSL) filed suit in the Northern District of New York against Seattle’s Getty Images, Inc., for trademark infringement. Car-Freshner claims it licenses various trademarks from JSL, including a number of registered tree designs in connection with “absorbent body impregnated with a perfumed air deodorant,” “cleaning products,” and “air fresheners.”
Plaintiffs claim they learned that “Defendant was promoting and licensing digital media for commercial use through the Getty Images Web Site that included one or more tree designs which are identical to, virtually indistinguishable from and/or confusingly similar to Plaintiffs’ distinctive Tree design Marks.” This, plaintiffs claim, constitutes trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution.
Getty Images has not yet answered plaintiffs’ complaint.
The case cite is Car-Freshner Corp. v. Getty Images, Inc., No. 09-1252 (N.D.N.Y.).
Michael Atkins
5 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Mark
Mark L,, thanks for visiting. BTW, I use your textbook in my IP survey class.
They have a nice little question and answer area on this extortion, it has Q. What if I didn't know and I paid a 3rd party to build my website and they used it without my knowledge.
A. Doesn't matter if you know or it was done by a 3rd party it is your responsibility to knopw all of the 75 million images copywrited by Getty,
?Hmmmm
I then found a copy of an answer to a lawsuit filed by a model that claimed Getty used a picture of him with out his express permission, their response
"Getty Images, not being fully advised of all the circumstances surrounding the allegations
set forth in the Complaint, reserves the affirmative defense that the claims set forth in the
Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff and third parties, not Getty Images,
directly and proximately caused Plaintiff’s alleged damages by their negligent, reckless, and/or
intentional acts.
Getty Images, not being fully advised of all the circumstances surrounding the allegations
set forth in the Complaint, reserves the affirmative defense that the claims set forth in the
Complaint are barred because the injury or damage, if any, alleged in the Complaint was
proximately caused and contributed to by the superseding acts or omissions of individuals or
entities for whose conduct Getty Images is not responsible"
Amazing they feel the Law is theirs to use to try and extort money from small business but then they claim they are not subject to the same law.
I have responded to them if they really want to spend the $$ to file suit here in this small county.in FL let them as if they try to file in WA I will challenge Venue as the server where the images reside and all work and use of those images are here so they will have to file here in Florida for their $1200.00