137 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010
Intellectual Property
Trademark Law
The firm advises clients on a wide variety of trademark, service mark and trade dress issues, logos, taglines, slogans, and designs. We conduct trademark due diligence and prosecute trademark applications and registrations in a wide variety of classes for a wide range of businesses. We also negotiate and write trademark licenses, and litigate trademark matters.

We have skillfully represented our clients in infringement lawsuits. We have won favorable rulings in trademark infringement matters in both the United States District Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Trademark Prosecution
  • Trademark Dissolution
  • Licensing and Trademark Agreements
  • Infringement Litigation
Representative matters:
Revlon Consumer Prods. Corp. v. Jennifer Leather Broadway, Inc., 858 F.Supp. 1268 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) – Trademark rights, trade regulations and advertising and a defense of trademark infringement claims. Following trial, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's advertisements would cause a likelihood of confusion.

SGC Commun. Res., LLC (d/b/a The Learning Annex) v. Seminar Ctr., Inc., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2862 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2001) – Copyright infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition issues. The complaint withstood court’s scrutiny and survived motion to dismiss. The plaintiff thereafter proceeded to trial and prevailed.

Greek Tourist Agency, Inc. v. Funaway Tours, Inc., 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12317 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 1980) – Challenge to registered trademark as merely descriptive. Following trial, the court held that registered mark was not entitled to protection. The words were generically descriptive and therefore the plaintiff's mark was not protectable under the Lanham Act.

TCPIP Holding Co. v. Haar Communs., 244 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.N.Y. 2001) – Trademarks and dilution protection. Order granting preliminary injunction reversed in part, with regard to the dilution statute, since the plaintiff's mark was not sufficiently distinctive or famous to warrant dilution protection.

Patabbe, Inc. v. IOB Realty, Inc. - United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Index number 95 Civ. 2387 – Trademark declaratory judgment action ultimately resolved when “Patsy’s Pizzeria” doing business near the Brooklyn Bridge in Brooklyn was required to change its name to “Grimaldi’s” to avoid confusion with the original “Patsy’s” doing business in New York.
© Copyright . All rights reserved. Disclaimer
Contact Us: 212-575-8333