BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A federal judge has sided with Lavatec Laundry Technology GmbH (LLT) and its U.S. subsidiary Lavatec Laundry Technology Inc. after a bench trial regarding ownership and the rights to the trademark “Lavatec.” The defendant, U.S.-based Lavatec Inc., is the former wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Lavatec AG and Lavatec Wäschereimaschinen GmbH & Co. KG (“Lavatec Germany”).
The dispute centered on which company owned exclusive rights to the “Lavatec” trademark once Lavatec Germany filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Both LLT and Lavatec Inc. claim to have acquired the trademark through their “respective purchases of the assets of the former Lavatec entities,” according to the Memorandum of Decision and Order signed by U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill on Wednesday.
The ruling states that LLT, which acquired all of the intellectual property rights of Lavatec Germany, is owner of the trademark in the United States.
In his judgment, Underhill says that Lavatec Germany was the first to use the “Lavatec” mark in the United States and never relinquished its right to use it in this country. He further stated that Lavatec Inc. did not acquire “any right of ownership in the mark.”
Mark Thrasher, president of Lavatec Laundry Technology Inc., made the following comment about the ruling: “It clarifies for customers and the marketplace the one Lavatec brand serving their laundry system needs—manufacturing and sales, supported with parts, technology and best-in-class service around the world.”
When contacted by American Laundry News, Lavatec Inc. issued this statement: “The decision on the ownership of the ‘Lavatec’ trademark will definitely be appealed. Further, there are still unresolved issues as to the usage of the mark and we await clarification and final ruling from the judge.
“It is business as usual for Lavatec Inc. with parts, service and manufacturing of laundry equipment. This case has only decided the ownership of the trademark and does not affect the Lavatec Inc. name of the company or any products or services that we offer.”
The 22-page court ruling is available for review here.
Have a question or comment? E-mail our editor Matt Poe at [email protected].