PITTSBURGH – A Western Pennsylvania manufacturer of cardiac and respiratory monitoring systems claims that Procter & Gamble is infringing on one of its patents in selling a baby monitor device it produces.
Circadiance, LLC of Turtle Creek filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 27 versus Procter & Gamble Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio.
“Circadiance develops, manufactures, and sells electronic cardiac and respiratory sensor and monitoring systems primarily for infants throughout the world. The Circadiance systems are sold under the name and mark SMART MONITOR. Circadiance and its predecessors in interest introduced the Smart Monitor system to the market in 1998 and have actively marketed the system under the Mark since that time,” the suit states.
“Circadiance targets both the professional medical and consumer markets with its system. Circadiance is the owner of SMART MONITOR, United States Trademark Registration No. 1,643,500 for cardio-respiratory patient monitors. A copy of this valid registration, which has attained incontestable status, together with a current status report from the United States Patent and Trademark Office demonstrating that the registration is live.”
The suit states defendant Procter & Gamble is engaged in the distribution and sale of baby monitors and has developed several devices for obtaining status data from infants and through its subsidiary and brand Pampers, offers for sale a baby monitoring device which is identified by the name and mark Smart Baby Monitor in connection with its Lumi system.
The plaintiff asserts that Procter & Gamble’s use of a name and mark which is identical to the mark as a trademark in connection with sales and offering to sell baby monitoring devices in the form of the Lumi Products, is likely to cause confusion and mislead customers and potential customers of Circadiance into believing that there is an association between Procter & Gamble or Pampers and Circadiance.
According to the plaintiff, the mark has become uniquely associated with, and hence identifies, Circadiance as the source of origin of the Smart Monitor cardio-respiratory monitoring system.
“Defendant’s interstate use of the mark on monitoring products constitutes a false designation of origin, or a false representation, wrongly and falsely designates their products as originating from or being connected with Circadiance,” per the suit.
“Defendant has advertised, in interstate commerce, goods using marks confusingly similar to Circadiance’s mark, thus causing likelihood of confusion, deception, and mistake among the purchasing public in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1114, which will continue unless restrained by this Court.”
For counts of federal trademark infringement and both state and federal unfair competition, the plaintiff is seeking a long list of reliefs, including:
• A declaration that defendant’s acts and use of the mark and other formatives, constitutes an infringement of plaintiff’s rights;
• A permanent injunction enjoining defendant and its subsidiaries, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those persons in active concert therewith from using any logo, trade name or trademark which may be calculated to falsely represent or which has the effect of falsely representing that the products or services of defendant and its third party customers are sponsored by, authorized by, or in any way associated with plaintiff;
• A permanent injunction enjoining defendant and its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those persons in active concert therewith from infringing plaintiff’s rights in the mark and its formatives.
• A permanent injunction enjoining defendant and its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those persons in active concert therewith from falsely representing themselves as being connected with plaintiff or sponsored by or associated with plaintiff or engaging in any act which is likely to falsely cause the trade, retailers and/or members of the purchasing public to believe that defendants and their customers are associated with plaintiff.
• A permanent injunction enjoining defendant and its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those persons in active concert therewith from using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of the mark in connection with the publicity, promotion, sale, or advertising of products offered or sold by defendant with a copy or colorable imitation of plaintiff’s mark;
• A permanent injunction enjoining defendant and its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those persons in active concert therewith from fixing, applying, annexing or using in connection with the sale of any goods or services, a false description or representation including words or other symbols tending to falsely describe or represent such goods or services as being those of plaintiff and from offering such goods or services in commerce;
• An accounting of all profits and an award of all damages resulting from defendant’s activities to plaintiff;
• Such other relief as it deems just and proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Barry I. Friedman of Metz Lewis Brodman Must O'Keefe, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01625
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com