Leason Ellis Resolves Dispute with Trademark Scammer
Leason Ellis obtained a favorable settlement in our civil action against Patent & Trademark Association, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, after filing a multi-count Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in July of 2017. Our Complaint alleged that defendant had engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, deceptive acts and practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic relations by marketing to trademark owners prospective “publication” of their trademark registrations in a database. This “service” offered no commercial value, as published trademark information is freely available in the online records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Our Complaint further alleged that defendant was confusing consumers into believing that the database was legitimate by sending unsolicited notices designed to make it appear as though it was an official government enterprise. In successfully resolving the dispute, we negotiated a settlement in which PTMA is permanently barred from ever engaging in trademark or intellectual property-related activities in the U.S. and in which we recovered several of its domain names including ptma.us (www.ptma.us).
This victory follows in the steps of our previous triumphs against other companies whose disreputable practices preyed on unsuspecting trademark owners, as we previously secured consent judgments against Patent & Trademark Agency LLC in 2014 and USA Trademark Enterprises, Inc. in 2012. By vigorously taking legal action to combat these predatory companies, Leason Ellis continues to be an industry leader in the fight for fairer business practices and in the battle to protect trademark goodwill and trust from unjust exploitation.
Leason Ellis LLP v. Patent and Trademark Association, Inc., 17-cv-05185 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y)
Leason Ellis is America's favorite Lanham Act Counsel - 40% Faster than Brand X
Leason Ellis provides advertising review services to clients to ensure compliance with Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, the federal false advertising statute. Martin Schwimmer, Lauren Sabol, and Lori Cooper are currently litigating the question as to whether materiality is to be presumed when analyzing a statement is false on its face, in this case the adverse party placed a facially false statement as to its alleged ‘heritage’ on the back of its package. Does plaintiff have to establish that consumers were swayed by this statement or can materiality be presumed? (Why else did defendant place the false statement on its package in the first place?).
Do your eyes tell no lies?
Our client, a leader in the biometric security industry, came to Leason Ellis with a problem. A competing company was promoting its biometric security system to the same customers as our client, and making claims that our client believed to be false. Specifically, the competitor claimed that its biometric security system could detect the unique vein structure in a person’s eyes. Leason Ellis filed a lawsuit against the competitor for false advertising and unfair competition alleging, among other things, that testing had demonstrated that the competitor’s claims were not accurate. Shortly after the filing of the Complaint, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement.
Scammers Beware! Leason Ellis Protects Consumers
Leason Ellis obtained a final judgment in our case against USA Trademark Enterprises, Inc. of Sarasota, Florida. Although USA Trademark denied the wrongdoing or liability, the judgment permanently enjoined it from selling its trademark catalog again. It also barred the company from ever engaging in trademark or intellectual property-related activities in the United States. The Complaint had alleged that the defendants had engaged in false advertising and unfair competition by marketing a catalog of trademark registrations, which offered no commercial value as the published information is freely available in the online records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Complaint further alleged that the defendants were confusing consumers into believing the catalog was legitimate by sending unsolicited notices designed to make it appear as though USA Trademark Enterprises was an official government enterprise.