Prudential Insurance Sues Philadelphia Bank Over Name Trademark
Prudential Insurance recently sued Philadelphia-based Prudential Bank for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming that the bank's recent name change is causing customer confusion.
March 23, 2018 at 01:45 PM
3 minute read
Prudential building in Newark, New Jersey. Photo Credit: Carmen Natale/ALM
It is never a prudent idea to use a name and coloring scheme that is similar to a business in a related market, especially if that business is the Fortune 500 company Prudential Insurance.
The New Jersey-based financial giant recently sued Philadelphia-based Prudential Bank for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming that the bank's recent name change is causing customer confusion. The company, which sells a range of financial products in addition to selling insurance, filed its lawsuit against Prudential Bank Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the bank's decision to change its name from Prudential Savings Bank to Prudential Bank and to use white and blue coloring for its web page “willfully infringed” on the insurance giant's trademark branding.
“The combination of Prudential Bank's name, color scheme and lettering style creates an overall commercial impression that is confusingly similar to the overall commercial impression created by the combination of the Prudential [Insurance] mark and Prudential [Insurance] design,” the company said in a complaint that Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga attorney Tricia O'Reilly filed.
According to the complaint, Prudential Insurance first learned of the alleged similarities after it received a customer complaint about its banking services. The complaint said the insurance company tried to resolve the dispute before bringing a lawsuit, but the two companies were unable to reach an agreement.
The complaint noted that both companies started in the late 1800s, with Prudential insurance opening in 1875, and Prudential Bank, then known as The South Philadelphia Building and Loan Association, in 1886.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the insurance company also adopted the names The Prudential Savings Bank and Prudential Bank and owned the trademark registrations as well, the complaint said. Prudential Insurance also currently owns and operates a bank in Connecticut named Prudential Bank & Trust, the complaint said.
Prudential Bank changed its name to Prudential Savings Association about 50 years ago, the complaint said, and began using the name Prudential Savings Bank in 2001. The complaint also noted that, when the banking company expanded online, it began using the domain name prudentialsavingsbank.com, although that has been changed to psbanker.com.
The banking company had used a blue and red color scheme, but, after its merger and acquisition with Polonia Bank, the company dropped the “Savings” from its name and began using a blue and white color scheme and “lettering style that closely imitates Prudential [Insurance],” the complaint said.
Along with a trademark infringement claim, the insurance company also brought three counts of unfair competition.
According to the docket, Prudential Bank had not yet retained counsel to handle the case by Friday. Prudential Bank's marketing director did not return a call seeking comment. O'Reilly said she needed to reach out to Prudential Insurance before the company could provide comment for the story.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
3 minute readPa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
3 minute readPeople in the News—Nov. 27, 2024—Flaster Greenberg, Tucker Arensberg
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250