Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (18121)	2/4/2002 3:58:02 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 34857

New AT&T Campaign Brings New Lawsuit BY HEIDI JETER FEBRUARY 4, 2002 'Welcome to mLife' now also means 'Welcome to a Lawsuit.' For the past two weeks, AT&T Wireless had been teasing audiences with unbranded television and newspaper ads for mLife and finally kicked off its new advertising campaign with a media blitz during the Super Bowl yesterday. But before the ads were officially unveiled, insurance and financial services provider MetLife filed a lawsuit against the carrier. MetLife sued the carrier Friday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting that AT&T Wireless' mLife campaign is confusingly similar to MetLife's established trademark and would cause irreparable harm to the company. MetLife uses the theme 'Have you met life today?,' while AT&T's television ads end with 'We are meant to lead a wireless life. Now we truly can. Welcome to mLife.' 'We are taking this action on behalf of our customers and employees because we believe strongly in protecting the value of our good name and widely recognized brand,' said Lisa Weber, senior executive vice president for MetLife in a statement Friday. The company is seeking preliminary and permanent relief prohibiting AT&T from continuing to use the mLife campaign. In a statement released Friday, AT&T said: 'Last time we checked, everyone is still free to use the thirteenth letter of the alphabet, 'm'. MetLife's claims are utterly without merit.' The carrier states that because the two companies offer completely different services, 'there isn't the remotest chance that AT&T Wireless' use of 'mLife' could in any way confuse consumers or dilute MetLife's brand.' 'AT&T is completely right,' says Scott Blake Harris, a wireless attorney with Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP. 'Given that the trademarks are not identical and the services offered are entirely different, one might wonder whether MetLife filed more for the publicity value than to defend its trademark.' Recently, AT&T Wireless has been hit with several highly publicized lawsuits. It is dealing with a consumer lawsuit originally filed in 1999 and given class action status a few weeks ago, in which two customers accuse AT&T Wireless of off-cycle billing. Earlier this year, the carrier was named in a lawsuit accusing the top five carriers of anti-competitive practices. The attorney who filed the complaint has since dismissed it but may file a related suit in the coming weeks. AT&T also said in early January that it would defend its affiliate TeleCorp PCS in a lawsuit filed on behalf of TeleCorp's shareholders, which contends the affiliate was sold to AT&T Wireless for less than it was worth as a result of $140 million secretly paid to top TeleCorp executives. The carrier did claim one recent legal victory when the Council of Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division determined that one of AT&T's direct-mail advertising campaigns were truthful and accurate. A consumer had argued the campaign was a 'bait-and-switch' tactic designed to mislead customers. Lawsuit Names AT&T Wireless 1/28/02