Attorney Profile

Ronald D. Coleman

Ronald Coleman

Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 3100
New York, NY 10119

New York

New York (NY)

Contact Contact Ronald D. Coleman
T: 212-695-8100
F: 212-629-4013

Visit: www.goetzfitz.com
Practice Areas: Intellectual Property Litigation (40%), Business Litigation (40%), Intellectual Property (20%)

Intellectual Property Litigation

Business Litigation

Intellectual Property

Industry Groups: International Trademark Association
Languages Spoken: English, Hebrew, Spanish

Profile

I am a commercial litigator specializing in federal litigation, through to trial or arbitration and including appeals, with a focus on torts of competition. I work extensively with online businesses, specifically in connection with the use of intellectual property and social networking on the Internet, in both litigation and non-litigation roles. My firm is also recognized for its strength in construction litigation.

I have successfully represented clients of every size in state and federal courts, arbitrations and mediations in a variety of litigation matters, including contract disputes, corporate dissolutions, distributorship litigation, accounting actions, will challenges, trademark and unfair competition cases, business tort claims, toxic tort and insurance coverage litigation, discrimination and wrongful discharge cases, copyright infringement claims, and cases involving trade secrets, restrictive covenants and real estate. 

My blog about copyright, trademark and related issues, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®, was recognized by the ABA Journal as one of the top 100 law-related blogs in the country in its first-ever listing in 2007.


Years of Selection

• Super Lawyers: 2012 - 2013

About Ronald Coleman

Admitted: 1989, New York

Professional Webpage: www.goetzfitz.com/FirmDetail.aspx?FirmID=27

Honors and Awards:

Bar/Professional Activity:

  • New Jersey State Bar Association
  • New York State Bar Association
  • New York Intellecutal Property Law Association
  • Copyright Society of the USA
  • Federal Bar Association
  • Association of the Bar of the City of New York 
  • International Trademark Association (Firm Representative)
  • Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
  • American International Property Law Association

Pro bono/Community Service:

  • Mesivta of Long Beach - Parents Committee
  • Agudath Israel of America

Scholarly Lectures and Writings:

  • Discusison of PTO procedural issues implicated by appeal of the TTAB's affirmance of the refusal to register trademark THE SLANTS, also discussed here.  The Federal Circuit appeal brief can be found here., Speaker (CLE), Angling for Allowance: The SLANTS Appeal and Examining Attorney Independent Research, Cleveland Intellectual Property Law Association, 2014
  • Analysis of trademark and related legal protections relevant to professional athletes.  Chapter in In the Arena:  A Sports Law Handbook., Contributor, How Trademark Protection Intersects with the Athlete’s Right of Publicity , NY State Bar Association, 2013
  • Analysis of the law and proposed legislation concerning extension of reporter shield laws to bloggers., Author, Bloggers, Journalists, Reporting and Privilege, NY State Bar Association Journal, 2013
  • Presented and participated in panel at annual AIPLA meeting, Panelist, (A Short History of) The Misuse of Trademarks to Control Free Expression , American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2013
  • Acted as facilitator and host for New York City roundtable discussion of issues relevant to trademark litigation., Facilitator, Trademark Litigation A - Z, International Trademark Association, 2013
  • Is there anything worse than a “bully”?  Maybe not, but a close second may be the misuse of loaded terms – such as “bully,” “racist,” etc. – to avoid reasoned consideration of substantive issues. In fact, there really is a trademark bullying problem in US law and practice. This article explains how trademark bullying works., Author, Bully for Who?, Intellectual Property Magazine, 2011
  • Analyzing Mass Copyright Infringement Campaigns, with special reference to the Righthaven controversy.  Moderator: Stacey L. Dogan, Boston University School of Law Panelists: Ronald D. Coleman, Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP Steven A. Gibson, Righthaven LLC Scott Bain, Software & Information Industry Association, Panel Member, Massive Attack: Analyzing Mass Copyright Infringement Campaigns, Copyright Society Of The U.S.A., 2011
  • The law and business of intellectual property are in upheaval today. Essentially, the concepts that underlay the conceptual, statutory, and judicial schemas that govern each of patent, trademark and copyright are rapidly being overwhelmed by technologies that could not have been foreseen even half a generation ago, much less when the roots of the legal doctrines surrounding each of these types of IP protection and the economic models on which they are premised took hold. The purpose of this essay is to consider one of these areas in particular, namely trademark, and to focus in particular on how developments in copyright arising from the new digital media have affected this area of law. , Author, Trademark, Copyright, and the Internet: Time to Return Balance to Civil Litigation, Engage magazine, Federalist Society For Law And Public Policy Studies, 2010
  • Led group discussion concerning trademark law developments related to the Internet., Facilitator, Policing Trademarks on the Internet and the Web 2.0, Table Talk, International Trademark Association, 2010
  • Developments in keyword-based litigation sounding in trademark and copyright around the world., Speaker, Keying Up Keywords: The Role of IP in Keyword Searching, Annual Spring Meeting -- Panel entitled "Global Warming: Hot Topics in IP Litigation at Home and Abroad", American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2010
  • Exploration of the development of initial interest confusion relating to Internet-based claims for trademark infringement., Speaker, A Focus on Initial Interest Confusion, Post-Sale Confusion and Related Strategies, Advanced Trademark Seminar, Minnesota Continuing Legal Education, 2010
  • Most blog content, it seems fair to say, is original (at least in copyright parlance). Bloggers fundamentally publish online because they have original things to say. But many bloggers, especially those blogging in the political sphere, have trouble resisting the temptation of copyright infringement by the unauthorized use of photographs or video from news services, or excerpts of reporting or other writing published by mainstream media outlets. This article sets out basic issues of copyright as they relate to using content on blogs., Author, Copyright Rules of the Road for Bloggers, Copyright and New Media Law Newslette, 2009
  • Overview of legal issues related to blogging., Speaker, http://www.lawline.com/cle/course-details.php?i=620, Lawline.com, 2008
  • Facilitated questions and answers on the topic of Jewish law issues in legal practice involving leading rabbinical authority and legal professionals., Facilitator, Jewish law issues in legal practice, Halacha Conference of Agudath Israel, Agudath Israel Of America, 2007
  • In the emerging world of blog publishing, there is a troubling trend toward mandatory disclosure of one kind of bias — the kind directly attributable to payment of material compensation to a blogger addressed specifically in a Dec.7 Federal Trade Commission informal opinion involving a company called PayPerPost Inc. — that is misguided, contrary to free speech principles and a threat to the growth of a dynamic economic and cultural phenomenon. , Author, Hands off Blogs: Mandatory disclosure of payment to bloggers runs counter to free expression, New Jersey Law Journal, Media Bloggers Association, 2007
  • Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C 1125(a)) creates a federal cause of action for what has traditionally been called unfair competition: a false designation of origin or other misleading information used in connection with the sale of a good or service, or misleading advertising. This provision allows recovery of damages by “any person who believes he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such an act.” Who, however, is “any person?” , Author, Prudential Standing: Who is , Advertising Compliance Service, 2006
  • Facilitated discussion among international legal professionals regarding trademark dilution law developments at annual meeting of INTA., Facilitator, Issues in Trademark Dilution, Table Talk, International Trademark Association, 2004
  • Participated in panel discussion., Speaker, Advanced trademark law, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Association Of The Bar Of The City Of New York, Trademark And Unfair Competition Committee, 2004
  • It is an axiom of practical lawyering that the best high-tech procurement agreements, like any other commercial transactions, are only as good as they are enforceable, regardless of how elegantly structured. Naturally the more sophisticated such an agreement is, and the more closely it is tailored to achieving a specific strategic business goal, the more important issues such as exit strategy, identification of deliverables and dispute resolution become. , Author, Managing Risk: Litigation Prophylaxis in High-Tech Agreements, NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education, New Jersey State Bar Assocation Business Law Symposium, 2003
  • Spoke on panel regarding indicated topic., Speaker, Managing Risks and Costs of Acquiring IT Solutions, Annual Business Law Institute , New Jersey State Bar Assocation, 2003
  • A critical examination of the then-nascent, and still dubious, doctrine of intiial interest confusion in trademark law., Author, De Minimis Confusion on the Internet: Compounding the Error of Initial Interest, Journal of Internet Law, 2003
  • Not every trademark infringement case ends at the preliminary injunction stage. Nor are injunctions the only relief available to aggrieved holders of valuable trademark rights. These two ideas are closely related because a trademark dispute that is hurtling (or crawling) toward adjudication on the merits is usually fueled by the expectation of either monetary damages or an award of attorneys’ fees at the end of the line. Anyone who has ever swung a big club knows that such a weapon is only useful if the prey is cornered. Luckily, Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, properly applied, can do the cornering. , Author, Depositions and Wrongful Profits in Infringement Cases: Cornering Your Prey with Rule 30(b)(6), Mondaq.com, 2002
  • Discussed impingements on free speech by abuse of trademark law., Speaker, Trademark rights vs. free speech, Trademarks in Cyberspace Conference, International Trademark Association, 2001
  • When may a court order a plaintiff to take self-help action to stop the continued operation of a website whose activities have already been enjoined?, Co-Author, Hacker With A White Hat, Mealey's Cyber Tech Litigation, 2001
  • Does advertising injury cover typical trademark infringement claims?  Yes, it does, at least in some jurisdictions. As a general principle, under New York law, “[T]he use of a trademark on goods implies or constitutes ‘advertising’ in ‘the ordinary meaning of the term,’ and that ‘it is not possible to allege a claim for trademark, servicemark or trade name infringement without the infringing mark being used to identify the goods or services to the public. This use qualifies as advertising under the definition [of the policy].’”  , Author, New York’s Declaratory Judgment Insurance Trap, Corporateintelligence.com, 2001
  • Consideration of the application and limitations of the common interest privilege in litigation., Author, The Common Interest Privilege's Evolving Nomenclature and Jurisprudence, Corporateintelligence.com, 2000
  • An analysis of judicial treatment of liquidated damages clauses., Author, Courts Run Hot and Cold on Liquidated Damages, Corporateintelligence.com, 2000
  • Evolution of courts' application of forum law in multi-forum complex litigation over insurance coverage for mass losses., Author, New York's Choice of Law Doctrine in Coverage Cases, Mealey's Litigation Report, 1997

Verdicts and Settlements:

  • SAE Power Inc. v. Avaya Inc.  Defendant Avaya Inc. appealed an order by the NJ Superior Court denying its motion to compel arbitration in a case we filed on behalf of our Client SAE. We argued that Avaya waived its right to arbitration because it (1) certified its answer under NJ Court Rule 4:5-1(b) and did not amend its certification; (2) failed to assert arbitration as an affirmative defense; (3) demanded and was served with substantial disclosures by SAE; and (4) later filed its motion to compel additional discovery from SAE in August 2012. Further, we argued that arbitration of only some of its claims and involving only one of the defendants would violate New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine. The New Jersey Appellate Division agreed, and affirmed the trial court's order by this decision dated March 14, 2014., 2014
  • Devere Group GMBH v. Opinion Corp. et al.   Per blogger Prof. Rebecca Tushnet:  DeVere is an international financial consulting company that alleged rights in various deVere names. Opinion runs PissedConsumer.com, which provides a forum for, you guessed it. It advertises itself as a “premier consumer advocacy group,” and as a review website which allows consumers to “make better choices” and provides an “empowering” and “unbiased” view of companies and products. Complaints about deVere are on deveregroup.pissedconsumer.com, which describes the company then has a section labeled “Devere Group Complaints and Reviews.” Review headings include “Devere stole my pension” and “Devere Lies Conmen–Fraudsters.” Google returns the deVere subdomain among the top results for searches for “deVere” or “deVere Group,” allegedly because of Opinion’s SEO techniques. DeVere sued for trademark infringement for the use in text and in the subdomain. Though deVere plausibly alleged that it had a valid mark, it couldn’t plausibly allege likely confusion, even initial interest confusion. Several factors weighed against deVere’s claim. First, the parties didn’t compete nor were they likely to bridge the gap. Second, deVere failed to allege actual confusion. Third, deVere failed to allege bad faith intent to confuse. More to the point, courts have “consistently” held gripe sites unlikely to confuse because they convey critical messages. “[T]here is no likelihood that a consumer visiting PissedConsumer.com would mistakenly believe that deVere sponsored or approved the contents of that website. The term ‘pissed’ in the website name is clearly negative, as is the commentary on the website about deVere's services--terms like ‘stole,’ ‘WARNING,’ ‘fraudsters,’ and ‘scams’ figure prominently.” Confusion was simply not credible. Initial interest confusion provided no help either. Given the ease of retracing one’s steps online, initial interest confusion requires intentional deception. In any event, defendant didn’t divert consumers from deVere’s website because deVere didn’t have a competing website. PissedConsumer is a forum for customer criticism, not a provider of financial services. IIC also requires close competitive proximity. Thus there could be no plausible inference of intentional deception., 2012
  • Ascentive, LLC v. Opinion Corp., 2011 WL 6181452 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2011).  Per Eric Goldman:  "This is one of the top dozen or so most important Internet law opinions of 2011 . . . In this case, the plaintiffs used trademark law to make a no-holds-barred assault on the 47 USC 230 immunity's applicability to consumer reviews. Their arguments go nowhere. I hope this emphatic ruling will discourage other plaintiffs from trying to use trademark law to work around 230."  Per Paul Levy:  "This week the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an excellent decision rejecting a series of bogus trademark claims and hence a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by Ascentive, a software maker, against Opinion Corp., whose PissedConsumer web site provides a forum for consumers to post complaints (or praise)...   We can be grateful both to Senior District Judge I. Leo Glasser and to Opinion’s counsel, prominent trademark blogger and commercial litigatorRon Coleman, for this important precedent." , 2011
  • Campmor, Inc. v. Brulant, LLC  (D.N.J. 2010) Campmor, Inc., successful online retailer and customer of "online channel partner" Brulant, LLC, brings suit based on breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence, fraud, consumer fraud and related claims arising from allegedly failed multi-year major website upgrade. Following removal to federal court, defendant moved for partial dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This is the order granting the motion in part and denying it in part. The court dismissed our negligence and breach of covenant of good faith claims with prejudice, noting with respect to the latter that under Ohio law--which the court ruled did apply--there is no separate cause of action for the covenant but that the substantive relief available is identical with that in New Jersey. The court dismissed, without prejudice, the NJ Consumer Fraud Act and fraud claims based on Rule 9(b), and granted 25 days to file amended pleadings. The court denied the motion to dismiss Campmor's negligent misrepresentation claim, 2010
  • Tropp v. Conair Corp. (E.D.N.Y. 2009) This is an action for patent infringement by David Tropp, inventor of an innovative system for making airline luggage inspection secure while accommodating the needs of the traveler, in which dual access locks that can be opened by the luggage owner and the TSA are provided to consumers, as described and claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 (“the ’537 patent”) and 7,036,728 (“the ’728 patent”). Here the defendant distributors* of infringing products moved for a stay pending resolution of a related case against another defendant alleged to be a manufacturer or otherwise the purported licensor of the infringing items, Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 1:06-cv-06415 (the “Travel Sentry Action”) in the Eastern District of New York. Tropp submitted this memorandum of law in opposition to the motion by the defendants to stay the action pending the resolution of the Travel Sentry Action in the same court. The procedural facts as set out in the defendants' brief were adopted here for purposes of the motion. The case law favored denial of the stay request. Tropp's patents, of course, are presumptively valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 282. Defendants cited rafts of cases, but they were almost all based on materially inapposite facts, especially as to the key issues of party identity in the respective cases. They also misstated the relevant considerations when analyzing the stages and filing dates of the earlier- and later-filed case. Furthermore, the equities and balancing of harms favored a denial of the stay. In essence, per the opinion, the court agreed with Tropp., 2009
  • Designer Skin, LLC v. S & L Vitamins, Inc. - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Plaintiffs in the Designer Skin are awarded an injunction utilizing proposed language by defendants explicitly permitting S&L to use its own photographs of Designer Skin merchandise on its website. This is an important holding, making the District of Arizona among the handful of earliest courts to apply the rule of eBay to copyright infringement. The court agreed with S&L that past infringement does not lead to a presumption of future infringement. Despite S&L's arguments to the contrary, the court found that there was irreparable harm, for reasons best expressed in its own words., 2008
  • S&L Vitamins, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) Per blogger and Law Professor Eric Goldman: If it wasn't so painful for all involved, I would enjoy watching the legal contortions of companies whose outdated business models are being destroyed by the Internet. Typically, these companies go into a litigation frenzy to suppress Internet-mediated activity that is good for consumers and bad for profit-maximization. Most of these lawsuits can't and don't fix the architectural problems of the business model, so at best they are a futile last stand., 2007
  • Designer Skin, LLC v. S & L Vitamins, 560 F. Supp. 2d 811 (D. Ariz. 2008) Per blogger and law professor Eric Goldman: In this case, S&L initiated a declaratory judgment against Australian Gold. By bringing a DJ, S&L kept the case in a Second Circuit jurisdiction--where courts recently have regularly rejected trademark lawsuits over keyword advertising and metatag inclusion. S&L's move paid off when the court says that buying keyword advertising and using metatags, without more, doesn't constitute a trademark use in commerce. This is now the fifth consecutive opinion in a NY federal court saying that advertisers don't make a trademark use in commerce when buying keywords, joining the Merck, Hamzik, Site Pro-1 and FrangranceNet courts (a sixth NY federal court opinion, the Rescuecom case, reached the same conclusion with respect to keyword sales). The remainder of the opinion includes lots of other interesting discussion, including: * S&L took its own product shots of Australian Gold's products. The court rejects Australian Gold's claim that S&L declaring "All Rights Reserved" with respect to those product shots constituted false advertising. * The "Australian Gold" trademark lacked sufficient fame to support a dilution claim. * Australian Gold claimed that S&L violated its copyrights in its labels by taking the product shots. This is an obviously spurious claim because after-market product shots are exactly what 17 USC 113(c) was designed to permit--and Australian Gold's effort to invoke copyright to restrict product shots shows its desperation to restrict legitimate after-market activities (as the court says, "AG is attempting to force a claim with facts that do not really fit"). Unfortunately, the court sidesteps 113(c). Fortunately, the court nevertheless finds that S&L's product shots were fair use of the labels' copyrights., 2007
  • Buying For The Home LLC v. Humble Abode, LLC, 459 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D.N.J. 2006) Internet-based trademark infringement claims.  Read the summary and analysis here by law professor and blogger Eric Goldman:, 2006
  • Lawson v. New York Billiards Corp., 331 F. Supp 121 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) Maintained cause of action for wrongful termination in case received by our firm at the end of discovery, resulting in favoragble settlement., 2004
  • Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Veit, 211 F. Supp. 567 (E.D. Pa. 2002): Per the IT Law Wiki: The court granted plaintiffs' motion for default judgment holding that defendants' use of plaintiffs' marks and the domain name"louisvuitton-replicas.com" constituted trademark counterfeiting,infringement, dilution, (federal and state), and cybersquatting. The court awarded $1,500,000 in statutory damages for defendants' willful counterfeiting ($1,000,000 for the six LOUIS VUITTON marks and $500,000 for the two OAKLEY marks) and $100,000 in statutory damages under the ACPA. The court awarded the maximum $100,000 under ACPA because of the defendants' "egregious" use of plaintiff Louis Vuitton's trademark as part of a domain name to sell counterfeit LOUIS VUITTON products. And the court awarded plaintiffs $46,504.88 inattorney’s fees in costs., 2002
  • Valley Nat. Bank v. Lavecchia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 432 (D.N.J. 1999) Succesful action by bank to resist overzealous regulatory interference not mandated by statute., 1999
  • Lewis v. American Cyanamid Co., 715 A.2d 967, 155 N.J. 544 (NJ 1998) Succesful appeal on behalf of manufacturer in claim arising from injuries allegedly suffered due to defendant's "failure to warn" of hazardous nature of product admittedly misused by plaintiff., 1998

Representative Clients:

  • Mul-T-Lock USA, Inc. , 2010
  • John Hawkins (Right Wing News blog), 2010
  • University Communications, Inc., 2010
  • Media Bloggers Association, 2010
  • Dental Recycling North America, Inc., 2010
  • Oorah, Inc., 2010
  • OTR Media Group, 2010
  • Opinion Corporation, 2010
  • Humble Abode, Inc., 2010
  • Campmor, Inc., 2010
  • Tel-Tech Systems, Inc., 2009
  • Techni-Plex, Inc., 2009
  • Rapaport Group, 2009
  • Partners in Torah, Inc., 2009
  • Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs blog), 2009
  • S & L Vitamins, Inc., 2009
  • Air Brook, Inc., 2009
  • Culturekitchen Media, LTD. (Culture Kitchen blog), 2008
  • Hirsch Wolf & Co., 2008
  • Rolex Watch U.S.A., 2008
  • Airline Software, Inc., 2007
  • Aish HaTorah International, 2007
  • Diamonds International, 2006
  • Robert Cox (The National Debate blog), 2006
  • Michael Bates (Batesline blog), 2005
  • Hertz Furniture Systems, Inc., 2005
  • Sun Plastech Incorporated, 2004
  • Host Marriott Corporation, 2004
  • Louis Vuitton Malletier, 2002

Video:

  • CNN interviews attorney Ronald Coleman of the Media Bloggers Association about the police search of data and effects belonging to Jason Chen, the Gizmodo blogger who wrote about the iPhone prototype found in a Redwood City bar. The focus of the interview is on whether "bloggers are journalists" --which, of course they are, as long as, like any other "journalist," they're doing journalism., Media Blogger Association counsel Ronald Coleman on Gizmodo / Apple controversy, Media Bloggers Association, 2010
  • In this Lawline.com course, attorney Ron Coleman describes the best thing an attorney can do if a clients come into the office claiming they're the victim of defamation on a blog--stay calm. Perhaps the worst thing an attorney can do is attract unneccessary attention on a blog that otherwise has little traffic. An example involving the major law firm, Jones Day, is highlighted in order to demonstrate a counter-productive response., How to Handle Blog Defamation, CLE, 2009
  • Ever wonder what type of rights bloggers have when they post celebrity pictures on their blog? Intellectual Property Attorney Ronald Coleman talks about invasion of privacy as it relates to the blogging world. He particularly talks about the ability for an individual to take legal action for a picture that is posted on a blog. Visit http://www.lawline.com/cle/course-det... for more information. Your daily tip of the day is brought to you by http://www.lawline.com, Invasion of Privacy Relating to Blogs Legal Tips, CLE, 2009
  • Is there really a valid distinction between your "professional" and your "personal" online presence? , Lawline - Social Media for Lawyers: Personal is professional, CLE, 2009
  • Trademark law comments regarding a Google claim that certain political ads could not be run due to trademark concerns., Ron Coleman on Fox and Friends - Trademarks, Politics and Google Adwords, Media Bloggers Association, 2009

Educational Background:

  • Northwestern University School of Law, 1988
  • Princeton University -- A.B., Economics (Certificate in Political Economy), 1985

Map Location

Blog entries — Ronald D. Coleman
The Garden State Parkway and government trademarks: What exit?

Aereo, FilmOn, and the “Shimmer” of maybe-unlawfully-clever digital entertainment delivery

INTA thoughts

Feeling his oats

Defending the trademark infringement defendant
 

White Papers

Online Auction Sites and Trademark Infringement Liability - (2003)

Is the operator of an online auction site liable for selling counterfeit goods on its system?  The law does not provide an easy answer to this issue that has plagued trademark owners since the boom of the Internet as an online marketplace and, on the other hand, as a symbol of a sort of free expression and economic "state of nature." The courts have grappled with similar issues very few times, and have yet to clearly signal the extent to which an auction site may be held liable for its users’ trademark infringement. Because of the intense interest in the way the law will respond to emerging technology such as online auction sites, and because this new venue so easily facilitates trademark infringement, the issue of online auction site liability fosters much debate and speculation. Existing law offers some guidance, but the courts could end up going any way on the issue as they attempt to balance perhaps the greatest threat to trademark law with a deeply rooted reluctance to hold third parties, in this case website operators, responsible for the bad acts of others. I was the principal co-author of this paper, which was adopted by the New York City Bar and published in its Record.

Industry Group(s): Association Of The Bar Of The City Of New York, Trademark And Unfair Competition Committee


Super Lawyers Magazine
What is Super Lawyers

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Read more »