Source: http://www.cll.com/attorneys-Richard_S_Mandel
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:28:14+00:00

Document:
Richard is a litigator focusing on intellectual property matters, including copyright, trademark, unfair competition and Internet-related issues.
Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018) – represented plaintiff record company in obtaining summary judgment and on appeal affirming such judgment. In case of first impression, district court rejected start-up technology company’s attempt to establish digital first sale doctrine for lawful owners of digital music seeking to re-sell their music files (940 F. Supp.2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). On appeal, Second Circuit affirmed the judgment below, holding that defendant’s engaged in unauthorized reproductions of plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings that were not justified by the fair use doctrine and thus constituted copyright infringement.
North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. et al. v. DRL Enterprises, Inc., 2016 TTAB LEXIS 282 (T.T.A.B. 2016) – successfully represented opposers in opposition proceeding challenging claimed rights in the designations 1.25 and 1.5 for cigarette rolling papers. Following trial, the Board issued a 98 page opinion holding that the decimal designations were generic or alternatively were descriptive without secondary meaning.
New York Yankees Partnership v. IET Products and Services, Inc., 2015 TTAB LEXIS 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1497 (T.T.A.B. 2015) – represented New York Yankees in successfully opposing applications to register applicant’s top hat design mark and THE HOUSE THAT JUICE BUILT word mark, which were purportedly intended to parody the Yankees’ primary logo top hat mark and THE HOUSE THAT RUTH BUILT word mark. In a precedential ruling by a panel of seven judges, the Board found that applicant’s marks resulted in a likelihood of dilution by blurring of the New York Yankees baseball club’s famous trademarks. The Board ruled that the parody defense was inapplicable in Board proceedings involving claims of dilution because of an applicant’s necessary intention to use any applied for mark commercially as a trademark.
New York Yankees Partnership v. Evil Enterprises, Inc., 2013 TTAB LEXIS 72 (T.T.A.B. 2013) – represented New York Yankees in successfully opposing clothing company’s application to register mark BASEBALLS EVIL EMPIRE. The Board held that the Yankees club had established prior rights in EVIL EMPIRE designation based on extensive use of that term by the public, press, fans and media to refer exclusively to the New York Yankees baseball club, and concluded that applicant’s mark would result in a likelihood of confusion among consumers when applied to clothing and would falsely suggest a connection with the Yankees. To read the decision, click here.
The Hershey Company v. Promotion In Motion, Inc., No. 07-CV-1601 (SDW) (D. N.J. 2013) – represented defendant candy manufacturer in defeating Hershey’s claims for trademark infringement and dilution. Following bench trial, Court ruled that defendant’s proposed use of SWISSKISS for Swiss chocolates did not infringe or dilute Hershey’s KISSES trademarks. To read the decision, click here.
Ferrari S.p.A. v. Exoto, Inc., No. CV 99-10205 (DSF) (C.D. Cal. 2010) - obtained order enforcing settlement agreement on behalf of Ferrari prohibiting use of its trademarks in connection with defendant's sale of miniature replica model cars. Following Ferrari's successful appeal to the Ninth Circuit reversing the original denial of Ferrari's motion, the District Court held that no valid license had ever been culminated between Ferrari and Exoto overriding the terms of their original settlement agreement, and that the post-settlement negotiations did not otherwise create a valid estoppel or laches defense precluding enforcement of the settlement agreement. The Court also rejected Exoto's fair use defense, ruling that any such defense had effectively been waived by virtue of the parties' earlier settlement prohibiting use of Ferrari's marks in any context.
Wolfgang Puck v. W. Steak Corp., No. CV 08-3394 (GAF) (C.D. Cal. 2008) - defeated preliminary injunction motion by chef and restaurateur Wolfgang Puck seeking to prevent opening of restaurant in Beverly Hills, California under the name 'Wolfgang's Steakhouse by Wolfgang Zwiener.' Court held that parties' agreement permitted use of the selected name notwithstanding any evidence of confusion in the marketplace.
Sanofi-Aventis v. Advancis Corp., 453 F. Supp.2d 834 (D. Del. 2006) - represented multi-national drug manufacturer in successful trademark infringement suit against publicly traded start-up drug company. After bench trial, Court held that ADVANCIS name was confusingly similar to AVENTIS trademark, and also violated state dilution laws.
Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Opening Day Productions, Inc.,385 F. Supp.2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) - obtained summary judgment on behalf of Major League Baseball Properties granting declaratory relief and dismissing counterclaims alleging trademark infringement of the 'Opening Day' trademark and misappropriation of ideas allegedly submitted to Major League Baseball regarding sponsorship program.
Malaco Leaf, AB v. Promotion In Motion, Inc., 287 F. Supp.2d 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) - obtained summary judgment for defendant dismissing case brought by the manufacturer of the popular 'Swedish Fish' gummy candy involving product configuration and packaging trade dress claims, trademark infringement and dilution claims and false advertising claim.
Prime Media, Inc. v. PRIMEDIA Inc., 33 F. Supp.2d 932 (D. Kan. 1998) - defeated preliminary injunction motion brought against PRIMEDIA magazine publisher. After an evidentiary hearing, the Court ruled that company's newly adopted name did not infringe rights of custom publisher previously using 'Prime Media' as its corporate name and service mark.
Marcy Playground, Inc. v. Capitol Records Inc., 6 F. Supp.2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) - defeated preliminary injunction application against Capitol's hit record album 'Marcy Playground' based on alleged claim that record's producer credits were false, in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of success on the merits.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.