93 Civ. 1056A (E.D. Va.)
We successfully represented Discover Card defendants in a jury trial in the so-called “Rocket Docket” against claims for alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiff, a Washington, D.C. business consulting firm, claimed that defendants’ adoption of the subsidiary mark “Novus”More
850 F. Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
Marie Driscoll protected the DOM PERIGNON trademark against “Dom Popingnon” popcorn. [Marie Driscoll]More
28 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 1994)
In this action by our client Anheuser-Busch over misuse of the MICHELOB trademark in what the defendants claimed was a parody advertisement, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court decision holding the ad was protected by the First Amendment.More
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13294; 1994 Trade Cas. (CCH) P70521 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1993)
We established PepsiCo, Inc.’s ownership of world famous STOLICHNAYA mark for vodka following dissolution of former U.S.S.R. and obtained preliminary injunction and later a final judgment against an infringer acting under the authority of officials of a former Soviet state.More
996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993)
Our client, the producer of the “Twin Peaks” television series, brought suit for copyright and trademark infringement against the publisher of an unauthorized trivia book about the series. The district court found that the defendant was a willful infringer,More
No. 90-CV-06147 (S.D. Fla. June 30, 1992)
We obtained a preliminary injunction on a trade dress claim concerning the design of suntan lotion packages.More
802 F. Supp. 965 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
Coors claimed that television and radio commercials run by our client Anheuser-Busch stating that Coors’ beer was shipped in railroad tankers and diluted with local water, disparaged its beer. The court denied Coors’s motion for a preliminary injunction and allowed the commercials to continue running because of Coors’More
963 F.2d 350 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
In a frequently cited case that established the proposition that famous marks are entitled to strong protection, we successfully opposed competitor’s application to register mark FUNDOUGH due to potential confusion with Parker’s mark PLAY-DOH.More
746 F. Supp. 1159 (D. Mass. 1990)
In one of the only decisions of its kind, the district court ruled in favor of our clients in finding that there was no likelihood of confusion when the identical mark “Pump” was used as the name of an album by our client,More
719 F. Supp. 161 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)
We obtained a preliminary injunction against defendant’s sale of telephones that copied the trade dress of our client’s “Fun Phones,” unique lucite-cased telephones with brightly colored components.More
