If they aren't actually affiliated then it sounds like a pretty clear case of trademark infringement.
"If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement.
15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125.
The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the
use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes
infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the
source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such
goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the
courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the
strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity
of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of
marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the
typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent.
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961)."
