Summary
This article examines the Bentley trademark infringement lawsuit against Fugazzi Cars Inc. and Keeping It Real Auto Customizing Inc., who produced and installed body kits to make regular cars resemble Bentley vehicles. Bentley claimed this constituted trademark infringement and dilution. The defendants argued the kits were original or only painted, not infringing. The court found in favour of Bentley, citing actual consumer confusion and awarded damages of five hundred thousand dollars. This case highlights the importance of trade dress and trademark protection in the luxury automobile industry.
Background
Bentley Motors Inc., the luxury automobile manufacturer, prevailed in a trademark infringement and dilution action against the makers and installers of body kits designed to transform less expensive vehicles into apparent replicas of Bentley cars. The central question was whether producing and installing such external body kits on inexpensive vehicles, to make them appear similar to high-end luxury automobiles, constituted trademark infringement and dilution of the rights holder’s mark.
Bentley filed its claim in July 2012 before the United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. The defendants were Matthew McEntegart, owner of Fugazzi Cars Inc., based in St. Petersburg, Florida, and Robert Frary III, owner of Keeping It Real Auto Customizing Inc. The claim was grounded in the allegation that the defendants were engaged in falsifying and counterfeiting the design and trade dress of Bentley vehicles by applying them to third-party cars.
Arguments of the Parties
Bentley claimed that the defendants illegally manufactured body kits that were fitted onto less expensive Chrysler and Ford vehicles to make them appear like Bentley cars, particularly the Bentley GTC. The conduct was alleged to be purely intentional, aimed at misappropriating the external appearance and design of Bentley vehicles and other Bentley trademarks. Bentley and its United States subsidiary, Bentley Motor, sought a preliminary injunction restraining McEntegart and Frary from making, advertising, or selling their kits.
McEntegart, the first defendant, contended that the body kit was created from his own imagination and that it differed from the Bentley GTC in overall appearance and specific dimensions. Frary, the second defendant, contended that his company had only painted three cars already fitted with body kits by Fugazzi Cars, and that this activity did not violate any legal right.
Findings
The Court found that Bentley had successfully demonstrated actual consumer confusion by producing statements from consumers who noted the similarities between the body kits and genuine Bentley vehicles. On the basis of actual confusion established by this evidence, the Court protected Bentley’s registered trademark and prevented its unauthorised use. By an order dated 3rd February 2014, the Court awarded damages of five hundred thousand dollars in favour of Bentley, to be paid by McEntegart representing Fugazzi Cars.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.