Kelley Drye has one the nation’s largest and most effective advertising litigation practices. The firm’s advertising lawyers have successfully brought or defended a range of false or comparative advertising cases in recent years under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits false of misleading claims in national advertising.
Our team of specialized litigators has experience representing clients competing in a range of industries. Your legal matters benefit from the strategic insights and innovative approaches that have informed the firm’s work for such famous brands as Bissell, BP, BellSouth, Iovate, MGA Entertainment, Michelin, Perrigo, Pharmacia, Sprint Nextel and Toymax.
Kelley Drye has extensive expertise in comparative advertising and trademark cases under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Within the past few years, we have successfully brought forward or defended advertising and trademark cases on behalf of the following clients:
- Valentino v. MGA Entertainment (E.D.N.Y. 2007)
Defended toy manufacturer in a trade dress and copyright infringement action. Case was dismissed by the plaintiff following early discovery and motion practice.
- Illinois Tool Works v. Pactiv (S.D. Ind. 2007)
Defended manufacturer of packaging machinery against patent infringement claims. A global settlement was negotiated after Markman briefing and argument.
- Levi Strauss v. Polo Ralph Lauren (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
Defended leading apparel company in trade dress infringement claims arising from pocket stitching designs.
- Bissell v. Hoover (W.D. Mich. 2006)
Challenged comparative superiority claims made by Hoover for its SteamVac products.
- CMSI, Inc. v. Pacific Cycle, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2006)
Defended a distributor of SCHWINN motor scooters from claims of reverse passing off under the Lanham Act. Case was dismissed with prejudice after denial of plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion.
- BellSouth v. Hawk Communications (N.D. Ga. 2004)
Obtained preliminary injunction in federal court in Atlanta enjoining the defendant’s “Dial Up at DSL Speed” claim.
- Nextel v. Verizon Wireless (2004)
Challenged implied superiority and establishment claims made by Verizon Wireless in connection with new product launch.
- Greenberg. v. Toymax Inc. (E.D. NY 2000)
Defended Toymax in an 18-day bench trial in the Eastern District of New York in which an inventor claimed violations of the Lanham Act. The Court ruled in our client’s favor.
- Daval, N.Y. Inc. v. Toymax, Inc. (E.D. NY 1998)
Obtained summary judgment dismissal of Lanham Act and state law claims arising out of alleged misappropriation of plaintiff’s concept for a toy product.
Back to: Advertising and Marketing
|
