Santander sues US lawyer over motorway advertising
Multinational bank Santander has sued a US lawyer who displayed advertising billboards in Pennsylvania displaying the company’s trademark.
Charles Peruto Jr, owner of US-based Peruto Law Office and a criminal defence lawyer, was sued at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In its suit, published by consumer advocacy site Consumerist, Santander argued that Peruto is liable for false advertising and used its mark and trade dress without authorisation.
The bank said that Peruto infringed and diluted its trademark, and made further legal allegations.
The US lawyer sued Santander for breach of contract, violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act, fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment in June this year at the Pennsylvania court.
In the suit, he claimed that he entered into a loan agreement with Santander based on the bank’s “misrepresentation” that he would face prepayment penalties no greater than 1%. When the prepayment penalties were more than 1%, he said he was “harmed” by the bank.
In October, the case was dismissed and Peruto then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The latest suit, filed by Santander, alleged that Peruto began “protesting” outside the bank’s branches in Philadelphia.
Santander argued that despite these actions, it took no action against Peruto.
However, on November 4, the Spain-based business said that Peruto “crossed the line” when he erected two billboards facing the northbound and southbound lanes of Interstate 95.
The billboards used Santander’s protected typeface, logo and font and said: “Santander: The bank that robs you”.
Santander said that with this “patently false, disparaging and defamatory accusation”, Peruto turned from “disruptive protestor to active usurper of Santander’s trademark”.
The bank is asking for punitive damages, monetary damages, costs for bringing the action, attorneys’ fees and a trial by jury.
A spokeswoman from Santander told WIPR: “We believe that Mr Peruto’s case is completely without merit and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.”
