11 results for 'cat:"Trademark" AND cat:"Experts"'.
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly dismissed trademark infringement claims contending Thom Browne used product markings resembling sneaker giant adidas' three-stripe logo. Adidas contends the jury instructions did not sufficiently focus on consumer confusion before and after sales, rather than at the point of sale, but prejudicial error had not occurred since the court emphasized the affected periods multiple times. Furthermore, testimony from an adidas expert on branding was properly blocked because his methodology was deemed unreliable in surveying the opinions of "fashionistas on the web." Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 23-166, Categories: Jury, trademark, experts
J. Merchant grants a motion in limine and excludes a tenured law professor from St. John’s University School of Law as an expert witness in a trademark lawsuit concerning a dispute over the MED-AIRE brand of medical mattresses. The court finds a report he authored for the case relates to straightforward matters regarding trademark law that a jury can understand without the assistance of an expert.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Merchant, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1272, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, experts
J. Peterson partially grants motions to exclude expert testimony from the Wisconsin-based corn products exporter and the Switzerland-based agrichemical company in the exporter's lawsuit claiming the company negligently approved the sale of a genetically modified corn seed in the United States before China began rejecting products containing a trait in the seed, causing the exporter to sustain $18 million in damages. In part, the exporter's motion is granted such that one of the company's experts is barred from testifying about the economic benefits of the seed or other genetically modified corn and another is barred from testifying about whether China is a key market for corn products. Similarly, the company's motion is partially granted such that the exporter's expert can testify about whether the company's conduct caused the exporter's damages and a ruling is reserved as to whether another can testify about whether the exporter's mitigation steps were "speculative or unreasonable."
Court: USDC Western District of Wisconsin, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv321, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: trademark, Negligence, experts
J. Stivers rules in part for the Marker's Mark whiskey distillery regarding evidence in a trademark claims contending defendant sold cigars in violation of the Maker's Mark trademark following termination of the licensing agreement. However, the survey performed by an expert witness to demonstrate the similarities between the cigars should be excluded because the expert did not establish the results were reliable.
Court: USDC Western District of Kentucky, Judge: Stivers, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 3:19cv14, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, trademark, experts
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Cogburn denies a pool products manufacturer’s motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of a competitor that sued it for trademark infringement. The manufacturer argues that the expert’s testimony is improper, but this is to do with the expert’s methods, which it is free to debate using cross-examination. The manufacturer has raised nothing to stop the admission of the testimony.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Cogburn, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv710, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, trademark, experts
J. Cogburn denies a pool product manufacturer’s motion in limine to exclude expert testimony following allegations of trademark infringement brought by a similar company. Essentially, the company claims that the manufacturer uses the company’s name to advertise its own products, which are compatible with the company’s, to make more sales. The manufacturer argues the company’s expert testimony is unreliable, but this is more to do with the manufacturer’s opinion on the testimony than its admissibility.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Cogburn, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: 3:20cv710, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, experts
J. Conley denies the club's motion to exclude the expert opinion of Thomas Maronick, who has worked as a marketing expert for the Federal Trade Commission, in a lawsuit alleging that the strip club used the models' images without authorization to promote the club. The club argues that Maronick's report is based on flawed methodology because he did not use the promotional materials using the models' images to gauge consumers' perceptions on the images, but Maronick did in fact apply his professional experiences when designing the survey that included the promotional materials and pictures in question.
Court: USDC Western District of Wisconsin, Judge: Conley, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv657, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, experts, Discovery
J. Tunheim grants the taco restaurant chain's partial motion for summary judgment and denies its competitor's motion for summary judgment in a suit brought by the chain alleging trademark infringement, partially grants the chain's motion to exclude expert testimony and denies its motion to strike the competitor's reply memorandum to the motion for summary judgment. The expert is arguably an expert on traditional Mexican cuisine and its distinctions from Tex-Mex cuisine, and therefore may testify on those topics. She may not testify as to whether consumers may prefer one over the other or whether they may confuse the two cuisines. The competitor's abuse of process counterclaim, which alleges that this suit was brought with the ulterior motive of intimidating and embarrassing the competitor, is dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating the existence of such a motive. The chain's trademark claims also survive summary judgment, since the chain's mark is strong, the chain has introduced evidence of confusion and a jury could find that the marks and products offered are similar, that this similarity was intentional, that ordinary consumers are likely to buy the competitor's food believing that it was the chain's, and that the competitor's use of the disputed marks could dilute the chain's marks.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 0:23cv, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: trademark, experts