Winery Seeks Declaratory Judgement After Garden State Parkway Threatens It With Trademark Suit Over Logo

from the exit-stage-trademark dept

Last year, we discussed a really dumb trademark lawsuit against two guys running a pizza company brought by the Garden State Parkway, of all things, because the pizza company's logo was a clear homage to the GSP logo. You see, the two pizza-making guys were originally from New Jersey, and so thought that fashioning their company logo as a tribute to their shared roots was a good idea. The GSP seemed to think that this amounted to trademark infringement, despite the fact that managing the New Jersey Turnpike and slinging delicious pizza pies are fairly distinct marketplaces. A federal judge disagreed with them, however, and dismissed the lawsuit.

That hasn't stopped the Turnpike Authority from threatening others, it seems. A winery, one that also uses labels that are a clear homage to the GSP logo, is seeking a declaratory judgement that it too is not committing trademark infringement after it had received a cease-and-desist letter.

Old York Cellars of Ringoes filed a declaratory judgment action against the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which operates the Parkway, after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from the agency over the look-alike logos. The dispute highlights a spate of cases where government entities have acted to trademark intellectual property.

The Garden State Parkway logo was registered with the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, but the lawyers for Old York Cellars argue that the statute creating the highway agency does not permit licensing of its intellectual property because it is not an activity related to transportation. Old York also says federal regulations prohibit intellectual property protection for traffic control devices. The public is unlikely to be confused between a highway agency and a business that makes wine, even if the state's trademark is valid, Old York said in its complaint.

And, just to add to all of that, the logos in question are far less similar in this case than they were in that of the pizza company. Here are both, side-by-side so that you can judge for yourself.

I get that the colors are the same, but much of the rest is rather distinct. Not to mention that the names of both organizations are featured prominently and in large font on both logos. Does the Turnpike Authority really want to argue that there is a likelihood of public confusion here? As though the public in New Jersey would walk into a liquor store and somehow think that the same group running the Turnpike is also selling wine? Really?

I would expect that the court would find in favor of the winery for declaratory judgement. Certainly any actual trademark suit brought by the Turnpike Authority would likely be similar enough to the one it brought against the pizza company to end with the same result.

Filed Under: garden state, new jersey, new jersey turnpike authority, njta, trademark
Companies: old york cellars

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Jeanette Rooney, 11 Nov 2016 @ 9:02am

    You left out the important piece......What Exit Wines sales help NJ charities!

    Please check out the June 2016 article in ( . A percentage of What Exit Wine proceeds goes to NJ charities. $13K going to Hurricane Sandy relief is a generous amount from a local business owner and that is only one example. Labels can be customized if you provide a photo or have a photo taken at the winery. The vineyard has changed the logo upon request of the the Highway Authority, but that was not good enough. I am not confused by the label. I am perplexed at how the NJ Highway Authority also has laid claim to the use of the color combination. I am wondering when they are going to break that news to the Green Bay Packers. Seriously? If you are a NJ resident, your tax dollars are going towards the Authorities efforts to stop the winery from using this mark. Now, you just raised gas in NJ 23 cents a gallon with the notion that it would fund transit projects because there was no direct source of funds directed towards this effort. After the bill was passed (with no input from the residents of NJ) NJ voters had to select if we wanted a portion the new tax that went into effect on November 1 to go towards transportation projects. Wait, was that not the intent after all that the tax passed by NJ lawmakers? Of course not. They way it was written those extra tax revenue dollars could be directed towards other "pet projects" such North Jersey Casino funding (which the voters did get to vote on and shot that down). NJ residents did not have say on the gas tax. I did sign an appeal via Facebook, but that is not going to happen now. Is taking down the winery one of those pet projects? This is what NJ is doing with your tax dollars. This is politicians recklessly following their own agendas, kicking a local business and local residents with a cease and desist on a wine that supports charities and raising the price of gas, so its residents spend more money on transportation costs. It is hard to get by as it is for a good amount of residents. Stop this nonsense Transit Authority. Don't do things that put a strain on business and residents wallets.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.