SEARCH GO

Last Rev. 03/15/19 07:402am

Trademarks and Trademark Infringement; and Unfair Competition

My background in trademarks and trademark infringement (and the related areas of the Lanham Act and "unfair competition") is easy to describe:

  • I am not a transactional lawyer and do not prepare, file or prosecute trademark applications. Accordingly, I do not seek any clients who want me to prepare, file or prosecute trademark applications for them;

  • I have defended many lawsuits alleging trademark infringement, including trademarks for games, books, handbags, other products and service marks for various services;

  • Recently, I have seen an increase in trademark enforcement cases in federal courts, undoubtedly fueled by the maximum statutory damage amount of $1,000,000 per infringed product within a single (federal) trademark. For a defendant that only sold $100 in counterfeit products, the possibility of a $1,000,000 judgment (plus, say, $100,000 in plaintiff's legal expenses) is understandably frightening, and is generating about 3,500 federal lawsuits a year, many of which have multiple defendants, so that the actual number of trademark defendants in the federal courts is probably about 15,000 each year;

    Another aspect to trademark cases is "trade dress" infringement, in which certain details accompanying the basic trademark are also given protection, such as the red hotels and green houses in Monopoly games.

    Another aspect is trademark dilution, a claim that the activities of the defendant are diluting or eroding the strength of the trademark;

  • I have substantial experience as to defending against a plaintiff's claim for damages in trademark cases, including actual damages, statutory damages, and recovery of the plaintiff's attorney's fees, and I have developed a series of needed defenses to the outrageous prospect that for a $10 illegal sale of a counterfeit product the trademark infringer could be liable for statutory damages of up to $1,000,000 (per product per trademark) and legal fees perhaps as high as $100,000.

  • In addition, I have experience with state trademark law including commonlaw trademarks.

  • I represented Anti-Monopoly, Inc. in its major trademark litigation involving the "Monopoly" game published by Parker Brothers, then General Mills Fun Group, Inc., then Hasbro, Inc. Parker Brothers sued Anti-Monopoly, Inc. for infringement of the "Monopoly" game trademark. Anti-Monopoly claimed that "Anti-Monopoly" was the antithesis of "Monopoly" and would create no confusion, and was not an infringement). Anti-Monopoly, Inc.'s main defense was that the "Monopoly" game trademark had become generic; that its meaning to game purchasers was the game itself, rather than the source or publisher of the game. After a very lengthy lawsuit, going up to the U.S. Supreme Court with a Petition for Certiorari by Monopoly's publisher, the federal courts upheld the 9th Circuit decision that the Monopoly mark had become generic (and that "Monopoly" indicated the game, not the source).
I have a substantial amount of experience in trademark cases, and am quite interested in looking at cases involving alleged infringement of any trademarks or servicemarks (federal, state or commonlaw).

Finally, you might be interested in reading about my epic Anti-Monopoly case, at

Please call me at 212-307-4444 or email me at carlpers@ix.netcom.com

You are invited to look at the rest of my website Website for Attorney Carl E. Person.

For the c.v. (resume) of Attorney Carl E. Person, click on Carl Person C.V.

Carl E. Person, Attorney at Law
325 W. 45th Street - Suite 201
New York NY 10036-3803

Copyright © 2007, 2008 by Carl E. Person