pocboston-ga,
I did not find a great many cases involving alleged infringement of
the Citicorp trademark, but the ones I did find certainly suggest
there is a good possibility that you would be hearing from Citicorp
lawyers if you were to go ahead with the name you are planning to use
for your business.
Here are the key cases -- and some brief excerpts -- on this issue:
-----
CITIGROUP INC. and CITICORP., Plaintiffs, -against- CITY HOLDING
COMPANY and CITY NATIONAL BANK OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendants.
February 7, 2003, Decided
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
.....Plaintiffs Citigroup Inc. and Citicorp (collectively "Citigroup")
initiated this action against defendants City Holding Company and City
National Bank of West Virginia (collectively "City Holding"), alleging
that City Holding's "CITY" marks and blue trade dress infringe upon
Citigroup's family of "CITI" marks and "Blue Wave" trade dress.
Citigroup seeks cancellation of, and an injunction against the
prosecution of, several CITY marks as well as money damages. After a
trial before the Court and upon all the prior proceedings and the
findings and conclusions set forth below, judgment will be granted in
favor of Citigroup, in part, as set forth below.
-----
-----
Citibank N.A. v. Citibanc Group, Inc. et al.
No. CV80-PT-0464-S
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division.
March 24, 1982
...Plaintiff claims that it is the owner of the name and mark
"Citibank," federal trademark and service mark registrations therefor
and goodwill associated therewith. Plaintiff claims that defendants'
adoption of and use of the name "Citibanc" solely or in conjunction
with other words, is an infringement on plaintiff's trademark and
service mark and their federal registrations; is a false designation
of origin under federal law; is an unauthorized use of and dilution of
the name and mark "Citibank;" and constitutes unfair competition under
Alabama law.
-----
-----
Citibank, N.A. v. The City Bank of San Francisco et al.
No. C 79 1922
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
March 23, 1980
...This is an action n1 for trademark infringement and unfair
competition brought by CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking association,
against THE CITY BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO, a California corporation, and
against its president DON RICHARDS STEPHENS.
-----
-----
CITIBANK, N.A. and CITICORP, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITYTRUST AND
CITYTRUST BANCORP, INC., Defendants-Appellants
No. 84-7959
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
March 4, 1985, Decided
The issue before us is whether the district court properly granted
preliminary injunctive [**2] relief prohibiting the defendants,
Citytrust and Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., from [*274] using the name
"Citytrust" in identifying or referring to their recently established
Long Island office, or to any other offices which they might establish
in New York State in the future. 596 F. Supp. 369. Since the evidence
before the district court was insufficient to establish that the
plaintiffs, Citibank N.A. and Citicorp, would suffer irreparable harm
in the absence of an injunction pending trial of the underlying
trademark claims, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for
further proceedings.
-----
Of course, these represent only the cases that went to court, and then
showed up in legal databases. There is no telling how many
cease-and-desist letters were sent out by Citicorp lawyers to
businesses that may have quicly backed down, rather than confront the
behemoth.
I trust this information fully answers your question. However, please
don't rate this answer until you have everything you need. If you
would like any additional information, just post a Request for
Clarification to let me know how I can assist you further, and I'm at
your service.
All the best,
pafalafa-ga
search strategy: Searched legal databases for cases involving [
citicorp OR citigroup and infringment ] |
,
0 Comments
)