Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.77
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.77.140 (2026)

Trademark imitation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Subject to the provisions of RCW 19.77.900 any person who shall:
(a) Use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a trademark registered under this chapter in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive as to the source or origin of such goods or services; or
(b) Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such trademark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with the sale or other distribution of goods or services in this state on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the source or origin of such goods or services
shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies provided in RCW 19.77.150, except that under (b) of this subsection the registrant shall not be entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with the intent to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.
(2) In determining whether, under this chapter, there is a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception between marks when used in association with goods or services, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to the following:
(a) The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties to appearance, sound, meaning, connotation, and commercial impression;
(b) The similarity or dissimilarity of the goods or services and nature of the goods and services;
(c) The similarity or dissimilarity of trade channels;
(d) The conditions under which sales are made and buyers to whom sales are made;
(e) The fame of the marks;
(f) The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods or services;
(g) The nature and extent of any actual confusion;
(h) The length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion;
(i) The variety of goods or services on which each of the marks is or is not used;
(j) The nature and extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial;
(k) Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.
[ 2003 c 34 s 5; 1989 c 72 s 9; 1955 c 211 s 14.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Nat'l Football League Props., Inc. v. Wichita Falls Sportswear, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 651 (W.D. Wash. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Football League Props., Inc. v. Wichita Falls Sportswear, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 651 (W.D. Wash. 1982). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 (a); (4) unfair competition and misappropriation of the commercial properties of the member clubs, in violation of the common law; (5) infringement of the registered trademarks of the Seattle Club, in violation of RCW § 19.77.140; (6) deceptive business practices, in…”
Flow Control Indus., Inc. v. AMHI, Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (W.D. Wash. 2003). “Although not addressed by the parties, there is an argument that, to the extent plaintiffs claim turns on trademark allegations, it has been superceded by the state trademark imitation act (RCW 19.77.140). At the very least, there are issues of fact regarding the non-trademark…”
Pioneer First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 637 P.2d 661 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Plaintiff then commenced this action seeking to enjoin defendant's use of the word "Pioneer" alleging trademark infringement, RCW 19.77.140, and unfair competition, RCW 19.”
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Hunt's Plumbing & Mech. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2019). “160; (2) state trademark infringement under RCW 19.77.140; 11 (3) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), RCW 19.”
Chang v. Little Monster LLC (W.D. Wash. 2022). “Plaintiff brings 26 causes of action under RCW 19.77.140 and 15 U.S. Code § 1125 (a) (1) (A)(B).”
Zebra Distrib. Co. v. Ace Fireworks, Inc., 450 P.2d 962 (Wash. 1969). “” It has been used in a great variety of commercial contexts. In connection with a claimed infringement by “Dandy Yankee,” however, relief must be predicated upon a confusion or colorable imitation of the marks.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.