Wish Atlanta, LLC, (“Wish Atlanta”) asserts trademark infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3783165 (IC025 and IC035) and 4242361 (IC035) (the “Wish Mark”) against ContextLogic, Inc. (“CLI”) in its complaint filed in the Middle District of Georgia on February 25, 2014.
Wish Atlanta alleges use of the Wish Mark in connection with goods and retail services since 2004 and on-line retailing since February 2010. CLI is alleged to have infringed the Wish Mark under Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125 (a) (false designation of origin) and 1125(c) (dilution), and to be subject to substantial state law claims (O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-451, 10-1-452, 10-1-372, 10-1-373). Wish Atlanta seeks cancellation of CLI’s registered, but allegedly infringing, mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§1064 and 1119.
Below is an image from the home page of the Wish Atlanta website.
The complaint alleges that CLI opened www.wish.com as an online marketplace in November 2011 selling goods substantially similar to Wish Atlanta goods, using the name “Wish.” Wish Atlanta asserts that many unhappy customers of CLI are contacting Wish Atlanta in confusion over the origin of goods and services. In obtaining the CLI mark [Trademark Registration No. 4340974], the complaint alleges that CLI amended its application in response to a rejection removing “references to ‘promoting the goods and services of others via a global computer network’ and ‘contests and incentive aware programs to promote the sale of products and services of others.’” Wish Atlanta argues that CLI’s marketing and sale of goods on its website suing the CLI mark “constitutes fraud on the Trademark Office.”
Below is an image from the CLI website.
Wish Atlanta seeks lost profits, an injunction, and attorney fees for willful infringement by ContextLogic.
The case is Wish Atlanta, LLC v. ContextLogic, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00051-CDL, filed 02/14/14 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land.
 The complaint further cites Eckles v. Atlanta Tech Group, Inc., 267 Ga. 801, 485 W.E.2d 22 (1997), which the author notes, for historical perspective, the author successfully argued before the Georgia Supreme Court.