IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Mo.: Credit union’s trademark suit against lending company partially advances, (Sep 16, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The court allowed claims for cybersquatting and state trademark dilution, while dismissing a federal claim for trademark dilution and a state claim for trademark infringement.

The federal district court in St. Louis partially dismissed a lawsuit brought by a credit union alleging trademark infringement against a competing lending company. The court dismissed a federal claim for trademark dilution, reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate its marks are famous for dilution purposes under the Lanham Act. The court also dismissed a state claim for trademark infringement, concluding that the petition did not allege Plaintiff’s marks are registered under state statute as required. However, the court allowed claims for cybersquatting and state trademark dilution to move forward (Together Credit Union v. Transform Credit Inc., No. 4:26-cv-00388-CMS (E.D. Mo. Sep. 14, 2026)).

Background. Together Credit Union sued Transform Credit Inc., d/b/a Together Loans, alleging six counts: improper appropriation of domain name/cybersquatting (Count I); unfair competition (Count II); trademark infringement under the Lanham Act (Count III); trademark dilution under the Lanham Act (Count IV); trademark infringement under Missouri Revised Statutes Section 417.056 (Count V); and trademark dilution under Missouri Revised Statutes Section 417.061 (Count VI).

Together Credit Union is a St. Louis-based credit union that has existed since 1939 and operates nationwide. In 2020 it registered two “TOGETHER CREDIT UNION” service marks with the USPTO; Plaintiff also owns the internet domain “togethercu.org” for its website, which it has operated since 2019, and has a phone app for its services.

Together Loans has operated in the St. Louis area and nationwide since 2025, offering high-interest loans. Together Loans uses the internet domain “togetherloans.com” and operates a “Together Loans” phone app.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant competes with Plaintiff using Plaintiff’s marks, or a phrase confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s marks, in providing loans and other financial products and services in the same geographic markets, including the St. Louis area. Plaintiff further alleges evidence of actual confusion, including that it has received “hundreds of angry phone calls from consumers confusing Plaintiff for Defendant,” and that applicants denied loans from Plaintiff threaten litigation based on “Defendant’s promises that everyone will be approved.” Plaintiff alleges that it informed Defendant of the infringing use of its marks, but that Defendant “has refused to stop using the Marks,” and that Plaintiff has lost customers, revenue, and good will because of Defendant’s actions.

Defendant filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition, seeking dismissal with prejudice of Counts I, IV, V, and VI.

Analysis. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed Counts IV and V but denied the motion as to Counts I and VI.

Count I. Plaintiff alleges improper appropriation of domain name/cybersquatting in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The court found that at this stage of the litigation, “Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant acted in bad faith by using a domain name confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s Marks.” The court wrote that “the two domains, Plaintiff’s Marks, and Defendant’s allegedly unlawful mark are not the same, but they are very similar.”

Count IV. Plaintiff alleges trademark dilution in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act). The court dismissed this count, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its marks are famous for dilution purposes. The court reasoned that Plaintiff did not demonstrate its geographic reach or the duration of its advertising and publicity. The court further said that Plaintiff did not detail the amount, volume, and geographic extent of its services under the marks, and did not include how widely the marks are recognized or its extent of goodwill.

Count V. Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement under Missouri Revised Statutes Section 417.056. The court dismissed this count, concluding that the plain language of the statute requires the marks to be registered under Missouri, not federal, statute, and that the petition does not allege its marks are registered under Missouri statute.

Count VI. Plaintiff alleges trademark dilution under Missouri Revised Statutes Section 417.061. The court declined to dismiss this count. Defendant argued that the statute requires the subject marks be registered in Missouri, but the court concluded the statute does not impose such a requirement, and that Plaintiff may proceed if the marks are valid at common law.

The Case is No. 4:26-cv-00388-CMS.

Judge: Stevens, C.

Attorneys: Richard A. Voytas, Jr. (Voytas Law LLC) for Together Credit Union. Alexander Foxx (Thompson Hine LLP) for Transform Credit Inc.

Companies: Together Credit Union; Transform Credit Inc.

Cases: Trademark MissouriNews