VONDRAN LEGAL® - AUTOMOBILE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY -  COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK CEASE AND DESIST LETTER RESPONSE - CALL US AT (877) 276-5084.

INTRODUCTION

Audi of America is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which enforces the trademark rights of Audi.  AUDI® and AUDI FOUR RINGS LOGO® are registered trademarks that they will enforce.  They also have trade dress rights in the distinctive overall appearance of the Audio Automobiles.

If you are selling their IP protected logos on your products (for example, on eBay, Shopify, Amazon, Craigslist or other sites), you might find yourself on the wrong side of an IP infringement cease and desist demand letter asking you to divulge all your sales, and to turn over profits to Audi and their lawyers. One firm noted was PCFB attorneys at law.

Audi takes protection of its intellectual property rights very seriously (as do other car manufacturers such as Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, BMW, Bentley and others.

If you received a demand letter, it is important to seek legal counsel BEFORE contacting their lawyers.

RELEVANT CASES 

A few cases show just how aggressive Audi can be in enforcing its intellectual property: 

• Audi AG v. Sun Am Corp, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2018)

The court discussed Audi's trademark infringement claim in detail. Under both common law and federal law, “a trademark is a designation used ‘to identify and distinguish' the goods of a person.” J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks § 3:1 (4th ed. 2004) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1127). Under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., courts apply the same test to determine whether infringement, unfair competition, or false designation of origin exists: the likelihood of confusion between two marks. See Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, 505 U.S. 763, 780 (1992). In Audi v. D'Amato, the Sixth Circuit applied that framework, explaining that “D'Amato's use of Audi's marks created a likelihood of confusion as to affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement.” The court rejected his disclaimer defense, stating that “such a disclaimer does not absolve D'Amato of liability,” and upheld Audi's injunction and damages award. This case is a textbook example of how courts in the Sixth Circuit evaluate online trademark infringement under the likelihood-of-confusion test.

• Audi AG v. Posh Clothing (D.N.J. 2019)

Audi, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen brought a federal action against a clothing retailer accused of selling counterfeit apparel and accessories online. The court observed that the defendants “operate a counterfeiting ring that imports, promotes, advertises, distributes, and sells apparel and personal accessories bearing counterfeits of Plaintiffs' world-famous trademarks.” Applying the Lanham Act, the court found violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) (trademark infringement) and § 1125(a) (false designation of origin). These sections prohibit the use of registered marks and misleading representations that cause confusion about sponsorship or affiliation. The judge entered default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2), explaining that the plaintiffs' allegations, taken as true, established that the counterfeit marks were “identical or substantially indistinguishable” from the genuine Audi marks. Statutory damages and attorney's fees were awarded to deter future counterfeiting and reinforce that courts view willful infringement of famous marks as an exceptional violation under § 1117(b) of the Lanham Act.

• Audi AG v. D'Amato (6th Cir. 2006) 

In Sun Am Corp., Audi pursued counterfeit sellers for violating its federally registered trademarks and trade dress. The court emphasized that “awards of statutory damages serve two purposes, compensatory and punitive,” reflecting the dual goals of 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c). It also held that a prevailing plaintiff in a willful counterfeiting case “is entitled to mandatory reasonable attorneys' fees under § 1117(b)(1).” Citing the broad remedial scope of the Lanham Act, the court reinforced that trademark owners are entitled to enhanced damages when infringement is deliberate. This mirrors the Supreme Court's reasoning in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, 505 U.S. 763 (1992), which confirmed that trade dress and trademarks both qualify for full protection against consumer confusion. Sun Am Corp. therefore, stands for the proposition that courts will impose substantial damages and fee awards when sellers intentionally profit from counterfeit goods, ensuring both restitution for the brand owner and deterrence for others.

As you can see, it is risky business to engage in e-commerce activities involving the manufacturing, sale, advertising, or marketing of their trademark logo products.

CLAIMS THEY MAY ASSERT IN A FEDERAL COURT LAWSUIT

If you sell counterfeit or unauthorized merchandise, Audi's attorneys can pursue several claims under federal law, including trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and dilution under the Lanham Act. They may also rely on provisions of the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984, found at 15 U.S.C. 1116(d), 1114(1), 1125(a), and 1125(c).

LAWS AT ISSUE IN AUDI/VOLKSWAGEN GROUD OF AMERICA CASES

The Lanham Act

Section 32(1)

This section prohibits the unauthorized use of a registered trademark in a manner that is likely to cause confusion among consumers. It allows the trademark owner (here, Audi or Volkswagen Group of America) to bring a civil action against anyone using their registered marks without permission, including sellers of counterfeit or look-alike goods.

Section 42

This section deals with the importation of goods that infringe U.S. trademarks. It authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection to seize counterfeit or infringing merchandise at the border before it enters the country. This is often used by large brands like Audi to stop counterfeit auto parts and accessories from overseas sellers.

Section 43(c)

This is thetrademark dilution provision. It protects “famous” marks—like the AUDI® name and the FOUR RINGS LOGO®—from uses that could tarnish or blur their distinctiveness, even if consumers are not actually confused. For example, selling knockoff apparel or novelty items featuring the Audi rings could be treated as dilution of a famous mark.

Section 43(a)

This section covers false designation of origin and unfair competition. It applies even to unregistered trademarks and prohibits misleading representations that could make consumers think a product is affiliated with or sponsored by Audi. Sellers using similar names, designs, or logos on auto-related merchandise could fall under this section.

Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984

Section 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)

This section allows trademark owners to request immediate court action when counterfeit goods are being sold or distributed. A court can issue an ex parte seizure order, which means Audi can ask the court to seize infringing products, records, and business materials without giving prior notice to the seller. This helps prevent the destruction of evidence and protects the enforcement process.

Section 1114(1)

This provision makes it unlawful to use a registered trademark in connection with the sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services without authorization and in a way that causes confusion to consumers. It serves as the main anti-counterfeiting law that allows Audi to sue for damages, injunctions, and the destruction of counterfeit merchandise.

Section 1125(a) 

This section prohibits false or misleading descriptions and representations in commerce. It covers unregistered marks, trade dress, and advertising that falsely implies association with Audi. Even if a seller does not use the exact Audi rings, using similar branding or marketing that misleads consumers can still create liability.

Section 1125(c)

This section deals with trademark dilution and protects famous marks like the Audi name and the Four Rings Logo from uses that diminish their strength or reputation. Dilution can occur through blurring, where the mark loses its distinctiveness, or through tarnishment, where the mark is associated with something unflattering. Audi can invoke this section to stop unauthorized uses even if there is no direct competition or consumer confusion.

THINGS AUDI ATTORNEY MAY DEMAND IN THEIR LETTERS

If you receive a trademark infringement or counterfeit demand letter from Audi or Volkswagen Group of America, their attorneys will usually request detailed information about your business activities. These letters are designed to gather evidence and pressure sellers into quick settlements. Typical demands may include the following:

• Disclose all suppliers: You may be asked to identify where you obtained the products or materials that bear the Audi name or logo, including all vendors, manufacturers, and distributors.

• Disclose all profits made: The letter may request a full accounting of your profits from any products that display or reference the Audi trademarks or trade dress.

• Disclose all products sold: You might be required to list each product that used the Audi marks, how many units were sold, and where the sales occurred, including online marketplaces.

• They may demand damages of $25,000 or more: Some demand letters will include a settlement amount, often starting around $25,000, depending on the scale of sales and the perceived harm to the brand. They may also threaten to pursue statutory damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief if the matter is not resolved promptly.

CONCLUSION

Receiving a trademark infringement letter from Audi can feel intimidating, but it does not always mean you are at fault. Many of these letters are based on automated marketplace monitoring or overbroad claims. The best step is to stay calm, avoid direct communication with their lawyers, and have an experienced attorney review the letter before responding.

Vondran Legal can assess the strength of the claim, help you understand your defenses, and negotiate a fair resolution to protect your business and reputation.

CONTACT A CALIFORNIA TRADEMARK AND E-COMMERCE ATTORNEY

Vondran Legal assists online sellers, automotive accessory businesses, and small companies facing trademark and counterfeiting claims from brands like Audi and other luxury manufacturers. The firm handles cease and desist responses, settlement negotiations, and trademark defense in federal court.

If you have received an Audi trademark infringement letter or lawsuit threat, contact Vondran Legal for a no-cost confidential consultation at (877) 276-5084.