This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Lanham Act
Trademarks

Harry J. Binder, Charles E. Binder, Binder & Binder-The National Social Security Disability Advocates (CA), LLC, Binder & Binder-The National Social Security Disability Advocates LLC, Binder & Binder-The National Social Security Disability Advocates (NY), LLC, Binder & Binder- The National Social Security Disability Advocates (NJ), LLC, Binder & Bi

Published: Dec. 24, 2011 | Result Date: Jan. 25, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:07-cv-02760-GHK-SS Bench Decision –  $292,235

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jessica G. Bower

Thomas M. Galgano

Robert G. Loewy
(Law Offices of Robert G. Loewy)

Kenneth G. Parker
(Haynes and Boone, LLP)


Defendant

Matthew D. Kohn

Ronald D. Miller


Facts

Harry Binder and Charles Binder were co-owners of the federally registered trademarks "Binder and Binder" and "Binder & Binder." They provide national legal, paralegal and non-attorney services related to Social Security disability benefits. Disability Group, Inc. was a competitor in the same field. Disability Group purchased Internet keywords that were identical to Binders' trademarks, resulting in Internet searches which included a link to Disability Groups' websites under Binder & Binder's headline.

The Binders sued Disability Group and Ronald Miller, its Managing Director, for trademark infringement, false representation, trademark dilution, causing injury to business reputation and common law unfair competition. Defendants denied using a heading and purchasing keywords that comprised plaintiffs' marks.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendants' willful infringement and dilution of their marks diverted customers seeking their services to their competitor's websites.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from making use of their marks and sought reimbursement for damages and lost sales, enhanced damages, a finding of willful infringement, as well as attorney fees and costs.

Result

The Court found in favor of plaintiffs and they were awarded $146,118 in actual damages which was enhanced to $292,235. They were further awarded attorney fees in the amount of $764,165 and costs in the amounts of $14,607 and $68,098.


#94997

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390