Williams-Sonoma Sues Amazon Over Name Use, Furniture Knockoffs
Williams-Sonoma claims that Amazon.com has set up an "unauthorized" store using its famous housewares name and that the online retail giant engaged in a "systemic campaign" of copying patented designs for its West Elm-brand furniture.
December 17, 2018 at 02:22 PM
3 minute read
Does anything say “Holiday Season” quite like one retailer suing another for trademark and patent infringement?
Housewares company Williams-Sonoma Inc. has sued Amazon.com, Inc. claiming that the web retail giant is trading on the Williams-Sonoma name and confusing consumers by setting up an unauthorized “Williams-Sonoma”-branded store and sections on its website. What's more, Williams-Sonoma claims that Amazon has engaged in a “systemic campaign” to copy the patented designs of its West Elm-branded furniture to create cheaper knock-offs, even adopting similar names for products in the Amazon “Rivet” line of furniture.
An Amazon representative declined to comment on the lawsuit Monday morning.
San Francisco-based Williams-Sonoma claims that more than half its sales come via its e-commerce platform, which has been in operation since 1999. According to the complaint filed Friday by the company's lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Williams-Sonoma has recently received various complaints from customers who made purchases via Amazon's website thinking they were buying directly from Williams-Sonoma. The suit claims that Amazon pages indicated the items were being sold “by Williams-Sonoma” or that they were “Best Selling Products from Williams-Sonoma.”
“Many of these products have been the subject of customer complaints on the Amazon website, are not subject to WSI's quality control measures, and/or have been damaged or altered such that the WILLIAMS-SONOMA mark no longer properly applies,” wrote Williams-Sonoma's Orrick lawyers.
The suit also claims that Amazon is using the Williams-Sonoma mark in direct email marketing campaigns while fulfilling orders for the underlying products itself. In particular, the complaint points to a Nov. 25 email Amazon sent to Janet Hayes, the President of the Williams Sonoma Brand, with the subject line: “Janet: Williams-Sonoma Peppermint Bark 1 Pound Tin and more items for you.” Williams-Sonoma claims that the $47.35 1 pound tin of peppermint bark in the email to Hayes was priced nearly double what the same item sells for on its own site.
The complaint also contends that certain items in Amazon's “Rivet” line of furniture violate trademarks and design patents Williams-Sonoma holds for its West Elm brand. In particular, the Williams-Sonoma's lawyers at Orrick wrote that Amazon's Rivet Modern Upholstered Orb Office Chair is “so highly similar” to the West Elm Orb dining chair “that the ordinary observer would be confused by the imitation.” The lawyers contend that the same goes for the company's “Slope” dining chair which also competes with an Amazon look-alike with a similar moniker.
“It is implausible Amazon could have conceived of a product line with nearly identical product designs which feature product names containing the very same non-descriptive terms WSI uses in connection with those products, other than by intentionally undertaking to copy WSI's West Elm product line and appropriate the trademarks WSI uses in connection with that line,” the Orrick lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit asks for an injunction barring Amazon from using the Williams-Sonoma mark “in conjunction with its online retail services and otherwise infringing or diluting WSI's marks.” The suit also seeks an injunction blocking Amazon from making or selling infringing goods. Williams-Sonoma is seeking statutory damages of up to $2 million “per counterfeit mark per type of goods sold” and treble damages for trademark counterfeiting.
Read the complaint:
|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 All
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute read
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Hueston Hennigan Secures Dismissal of SEC Action Against Ex-PwC Auditor in Mattel-Linked Case
Walmart agrees to pay $7.5 million to settle California suit over hazardous waste
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
