We don’t get many state-court trade name decisions in Washington, and when we do, they don’t get as much attention as they should. Here’s one of them — from last year, unfortunately — that remained under the radar until last week when Westlaw picked it up. (Cheers for Westlaw’s doing so. Jeers for not doing so until now.)
In December 2006, plaintiff Custom Auto Interiors, Inc., d/b/a Custom RV Interiors, Inc., sued defendant Custom RV Interiors, Inc. and its owners in Clark County Superior Court for trade name infringement. Plaintiff alleged that defendants attempted to buy plaintiff’s business and, when they did not succeed, infringed plaintiff’s trade name by registering “Custom R.V. Interiors, Inc.,” “Custom R.V.” and “R.V. Interiors” with the Washington Department of Licensing, and by starting a competing business with the name “Dave and LJ’s Custom RV Interiors, Inc.” (As a side note, the plaintiff corporation was owned by father David Ast, and the defendant corporation is owned by sons David and Larry J. Ast.)
In January 2007, Clark County Superior Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from using “Custom RV Interiors, Inc.” as their trade name. Defendants appealed, arguing that “custom RV interiors” is generic for a business that sells custom RV interiors and, therefore, is not protectable as a trade name.
In May 2008, the Court of Appeals (Division II) agreed. “Here, ‘custom RV interiors’ is a generic trade name and, even though Custom Auto has been using the trade name ‘custom RV interiors’ for over 15 years, and has likely established some consumer recognition, it is not entitled to legal protection. But even if we found that ‘custom RV interiors’ is slightly descriptive, no evidence supports Custom Auto’s argument that it has a secondary meaning entitling it to trade name protection.”
On that issue, the court found “although Custom Auto has used the name ‘custom RV interiors’ for over 15 years, has heavily advertised using that name and David and LJ may have intended to copy the name, Custom Auto has failed to provide sufficient evidence that a ‘substantial segment’ of relevant purchasers, suppliers, or agencies associate the term ‘custom RV interiors’ with Custom Auto’s business. While Custom Auto alleges confusion by ‘a number’ of suppliers and ‘several’ customers, it has provided only two specific examples: a supplier sent it an email intended for Custom RV, and a security company contacted it about what the security company believed to be a relocation. This is insufficient to establish confusion or secondary meaning.”
The case cite is Custom Auto Interiors, Inc. v. Custom RV Interiors, Inc., No. 35869-7-II, 2008 WL 6693460 (May 20, 2008) (unpublished), pet. denied, No. 81976-9 (Jan. 6, 2009).