850 F. Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
Marie Driscoll protected the DOM PERIGNON trademark against “Dom Popingnon” popcorn. [Marie Driscoll]More
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci
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
Financial Matters v. PepsiCo, Inc.
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
Twin Peaks Prods., Inc. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd.
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
Sun Pharmaceuticals v. Tanning Research
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
Coors Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
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
Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc.
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
Pump, Inc. v. Collins Management
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
Maher & Maher, Inc. v. Unisonic Products Corp.
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
Nabisco Brands, Inc. v. Conusa Corp.
892 F.2d 74 (4th Cir. 1989)
The Fourth Circuit protected as trademark a configuration for Lifesavers candy that had once been the subject of a design patent.More