Skip to main content
Ronald David Coleman

Ronald Coleman’s Legal Cases

34 total

  • Zenith Products Corp. v. CKC International, LLC et al. (D.N.J.)

    Practice Area:
    Trademark Infringement
    Date:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Outcome:
    Temporary restraining order granted; settled
    Description:
    Trademark infringement and related claims against retailers, distributor and purported scrap dealer. The scrap dealer bought, for less than a penny on the dollar at retail price, a large quantity of our client's trademark-bearing merchandise which failed the client's quality control inspection. The scrap dealer agreed to separate the packaging from the products and to dispose of the material as waste. Instead it ended up on store shelves in the New York area. The stores and the intermediary distributor refused to cooperate and this action was brought. Co-counsel was William R. Denny, Esq. of Potter Anderson & Corroon in Wilmington.
  • The Donna Karan Co., et al v. Deziner Wholesale (S.D.N.Y.)

    Practice Area:
    Trademark Infringement
    Date:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Outcome:
    Settled.
    Description:
    Lawsuit by designer Donna Karan against a company that sold knockoffs of her trademark-protected eyewear on a website.
  • Cartier, Inc., et al v. United Vision Sales, et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Apr 04, 2002
    Outcome:
    A satisfactory settlement was reached.
    Description:
    We represented Cartier, Chanel, Guess, Donna Karan, Polo / Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein or their licensees. Defendants sold knockoff versions of plaintiffs' designer sunglasses at kiosks or carts in malls and transit terminals. We alleged that the defendants infringed and the designers' Trademarks by encouraging and even supplying kiosk/cart advertising displays that boldly and prominently utilize the Plaintiffs’ respective trademarks for the purposes of attracting consumers by the use of such trademarks. A thin "compare to" approach was used on the packaging, but the consumer was fundamentally being attracted by the prominent use of the designers' trade names on the boxes of the merchandise. Arguably the theory of recovery here was initial interest confusion.
  • Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Rozenfeld (D.N.J.)

    Practice Area:
    Trademark Infringement
    Date:
    Dec 05, 2007
    Outcome:
    Rolex awarded over $1 million
    Description:
    A suit by Rolex against various defendants for preliminary and permanent injunctions, statutory damages, treble damages or profits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, investigators’ fees and costs from defendants for each of Plaintiff’s marks that Defendants have willfully and maliciously counterfeited. Defendants were sued by Rolex as a result of Defendants’ sale, offers for sale, distribution, promotion and advertisement of watches bearing counterfeits and infringements of Rolex’s federally registered Rolex trademarks. The unlawful acts of Defendants constituted federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false designation of origin and false description and unfair competition under New Jersey common law.
  • University Communications, Inc. v. Net Access Corporation (Superior Ct., NJ - Morris)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Outcome:
    Dismissed on motion at jury trial; subsequently remanded, settled
    Description:
    Dispute over complex business and technical relationship severed upon the moving of my client's business operations from defendant's web hosting data center.
  • Tropp v. Conair Corporation, et al. (E.D.N.Y.)

    Practice Area:
    Patent Infringement
    Outcome:
    Dismissed based on outcome in another case; appeal pending
    Description:
    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”). Early in the case 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, and denied the stay motion.
  • Mul-T-Lock USA, Inc. v. Alexanders Hardware Corp. et al. (S.D.N.Y.)

    Practice Area:
    Intellectual Property
    Outcome:
    Most defendants settled without defending.
    Description:
    Lawsuit by manufacturer of high security locks against rogue licensee locksmiths alleged to have wrongfully produced keys on counterfeit key blanks, in violation of their license agreements and in tort. The claims are for breach of contract, various types of trademark-based claims, patent infringement and other business torts.
  • Intel Corporation v. Americas News Intel Publishing LLC (C.D. Cal.)

    Practice Area:
    Trademark Infringement
    Outcome:
    Plaintiff dismissed own case when faced with our defense
    Description:
    "Chip giant Intel has a bit of a reputation for being a trademark bully at times, threatening or suing many companies just for having 'intel' in their name somewhere -- including a travel agency and a jeans company.... Intel's lawyers seem to go out of their way to find potential infringement where there obviously is none at all. "Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the latest such case, where Intel has sued the operators of the Mexico Watch newsletter, because its domain is LatinIntel.com. Of course, the reason for that is that it is using the commonly accepted abbreviation of "intel" as short for "intelligence." It's common shorthand, especially within government circles, to refer to gathered intelligence as simply "intel." The owners of the site explained this to Intel, and in return were given a boilerplate explanation about trademark law, insisting that since Intel's trademark is so valuable, it still has to stop others from using it -- even if they're in a totally different business, which is an interesting interpretation of trademark law, and one not supported by the courts in most cases. "More importantly, no one is going to look at LatinIntel.com and confuse it for the world's largest computer chip maker. No one is going to look at that site and wonder how come they can't order a Centrino processor. There's simply no confusion at all... [A]fter more than two years of this back and forth, Intel sued Mexico Watch, even though it's not even close to competitive and any "moron in a hurry" (as the popular trademark test notes) would clearly know the difference between a site about Mexican politics and a company selling microprocessors." www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1151596970.shtml
  • Monster Worldwide, Inc. v. HR Guru.Biz Corporation (S.D.N.Y.)

    Practice Area:
    Trademark Infringement
    Outcome:
    Satisfactory settlement achieved
    Description:
    HRGuru.BIZ is a personnel recruitment firm which did business under the name HR GURU beginning in 2002, earning common law rights in that trademark. It could not obtain the HRGuru.com domain, however, which was being warehoused. So it opened up a website at HRGuru.biz and adopted that domain name as its corporate name and an additional business name, and applied for trademark registrations for the word HRGURU.BIZ. It was granted one in 2004 and one in 2005. Another company did obtain the HRGuru.com domain, however, and developed its own website in the human resources area at that domain in 2006 using the name HR GURU. That company was subsequently acquired by the defendants in this case (actually by Affinity Labs, which is owned by Monster.com) which in turn "went national" with a major online project using the HR GURU name and applied for trademark registrations as well. Affinity's trademark registration applications for HR GURU were rejected by the PTO as being confusing similar to those held by HRGuru.Biz. Meanwhile, the latter learned of Affinity's project, and demanded that it cease and desist infringing the HR GURU trademarks and compensate HRGuru.BIZ for the same. Although there some negotiation occurred, the parties could not come to an agreement. Early in 2009, just as negotiations seemed to be at an end, Affinity announced that it was, without any waiver of rights or admission of liability, going to "walk away" from any use of the HR GURU mark and rebrand the website, and expected HRGuru.Biz to do the same. HRGuru.Biz declined to waive its rights, however. Affinity then brought a declaratory judgment action against HRGuru.Biz--the owner of the original trademarks--seeking a judgment of non-infringement based on abandonment as well as cancellation of the two HRGURU.BIZ registered marks.
  • Ascentive LLC v. Opinion Corp. (E.D.N.Y.)

    Practice Area:
    Trademark Infringement
    Date:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Outcome:
    Successful defense against motion for preliminary injunction
    Description:
    This case, arising under the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), exemplifies a new species of litigation spawned by the age of the Internet. The plaintiffs in this case are Ascentive, LLC ("Ascentive"), an Internet software company, and Classic Brands, LLC ("Classic") a mattress manufacturer. Ascentive and Classic ("plaintiffs") bring suit against Opinion Corp. and three of its officers: (1) Michael Podolsky ("Podolsky"), Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"); (2) Alex Syrov, President; and (3) Joanna Clark Simpson, Marketing Director (collectively "defendants" or "PissedConsumer"), operators and owners of a consumer review website called www.PissedConsumer.com. Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to disable PissedConsumer webpages containing negative reviews of their products at the following web addresses: Ascentive.PissedConsumer.com, FinallyFast. PissedConsumer.com; Dormia-mattresss.PissedConsumer.com; and Dormia.PissedConsumer..com. Plaintiffs contend that PissedConsumer's use of their registered trademarks in the web addresses of these pages, in the pages' metatags—the computer code associated with the pages— in the text pages themselves, and in connection with advertising for their competitors' products on these pages constitutes trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a). They also contend that PissedConsumer's "Reputation Management Services," which, for a fee, allows companies receiving negative consumer reviews to respond to the reviews and, under certain circumstances, alter the format in which the reviews appear, effectively amounts to extortion, bribery and other fraudulent behavior prohibited by RICO. For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction are hereby DENIED.