Search News
For the Media
For media inquiries, call CWA Communications at 202-434-1168 or email comms@cwa-union.org. To read about CWA Members, Leadership or Industries, visit our About page.
Verizon Wireless Loses Trademark Lawsuit, Complaints Against CWA
New Jersey Federal District Court Judge Mary L. Cooper has thrown out a nine-count lawsuit filed last year by Verizon Wireless (doing business as "Cellco Partnership") against the Communications Workers of America.
Verizon Wireless argued that CWA's 2002 media campaign against Verizon Communications, which had parodied the Verizon Wireless advertising slogan "Can You Hear Me Now? Good," violated federal and state trademark laws.
CWA's media campaign targeted Verizon Communications for its threatened layoff of thousands of union-represented workers just before the holidays, in violation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Radio, television and print ads featured union workers raising questions about Verizon's labor policies, pointing out why the proposed layoffs were unfair, and asking "Verizon: Can You Hear Us Now?"
Verizon Wireless, which is 55 percent owned by Verizon Communications, argued that trademark laws prevented CWA from commenting on Verizon's labor policies by using a parody of the Wireless slogan. Judge Cooper disagreed, finding that the trademark laws were intended to prohibit "commercial" activities, not the type of labor speech involved in the CWA campaign.
Verizon Wireless also claimed that CWA's campaign created "confusion" by using the slogan of a different company – Verizon Communications. But the court found that any claimed injury to Wireless was "self-inflicted" since it had voluntarily chosen to share the common name, thereby assuming the risk that consumers might think that the two companies were identical.
In rejecting Verizon Wireless's claims, the court held that CWA's messages were not the type of "anti-competitive conduct in a commercial context" barred by trademark laws. The court also pointed to the First Amendment's strong constitutional protection for statements made during labor disputes. Since CWA's messages were meant to create public support for the plight of Verizon workers, they fell within the classic definition of a labor dispute and were not actionable, Judge Cooper determined. The court also dismissed defamation and other claims against the union.
In July, 2003, arbitrator Shyam Das agreed with CWA that Verizon's layoff of union workers had violated the union contract. The company was ordered to reinstate 2,300 employees with full back pay and the company agreed to reinstate another 1,100 in districts where arbitrations were still pending.
###
Verizon Wireless argued that CWA's 2002 media campaign against Verizon Communications, which had parodied the Verizon Wireless advertising slogan "Can You Hear Me Now? Good," violated federal and state trademark laws.
CWA's media campaign targeted Verizon Communications for its threatened layoff of thousands of union-represented workers just before the holidays, in violation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Radio, television and print ads featured union workers raising questions about Verizon's labor policies, pointing out why the proposed layoffs were unfair, and asking "Verizon: Can You Hear Us Now?"
Verizon Wireless, which is 55 percent owned by Verizon Communications, argued that trademark laws prevented CWA from commenting on Verizon's labor policies by using a parody of the Wireless slogan. Judge Cooper disagreed, finding that the trademark laws were intended to prohibit "commercial" activities, not the type of labor speech involved in the CWA campaign.
Verizon Wireless also claimed that CWA's campaign created "confusion" by using the slogan of a different company – Verizon Communications. But the court found that any claimed injury to Wireless was "self-inflicted" since it had voluntarily chosen to share the common name, thereby assuming the risk that consumers might think that the two companies were identical.
In rejecting Verizon Wireless's claims, the court held that CWA's messages were not the type of "anti-competitive conduct in a commercial context" barred by trademark laws. The court also pointed to the First Amendment's strong constitutional protection for statements made during labor disputes. Since CWA's messages were meant to create public support for the plight of Verizon workers, they fell within the classic definition of a labor dispute and were not actionable, Judge Cooper determined. The court also dismissed defamation and other claims against the union.
In July, 2003, arbitrator Shyam Das agreed with CWA that Verizon's layoff of union workers had violated the union contract. The company was ordered to reinstate 2,300 employees with full back pay and the company agreed to reinstate another 1,100 in districts where arbitrations were still pending.
###