Source: https://www.lawfirm.ms/joel-g-macmull
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:19:44+00:00

Document:
Joel G. MacMull is a Member and Vice Chair of the Firm’s Intellectual Property & Brand Management and Commercial and Corporate Litigation Practice Groups. Joel’s practice focuses on high-stakes complex commercial litigation and intellectual property disputes, including copyright and trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, false advertising, “cybersquatting,” rights of publicity, as well as general contract and business tort disputes. Joel has tried and argued cases in state and federal courts, as well as before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Joel also has significant appellate experience. He was intimately involved in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Matal v. Tam (formerly Lee v. Tam), in which the Supreme Court by a unanimous vote of 8-to-0 (Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case) affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling in late 2015. The High Court held that § 2(a) of the federal trademark statute violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment because the government discriminates based on viewpoint and targets offensive expression with an intent to discourage its use.
Joel has also briefed and argued multiple cases before the Second Circuit, and the New York Appellate Division.
•	Matal v. Tam (the Supreme Court of the United States). Representing trademark applicant, Simon Shiao Tam, in his appeal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s refusal to grant him registration of his trademark, THE SLANTS, on grounds it is disparaging toward Asian Americans.
•	Roca Labs, Inc. v. Consumer Opinion Corp. et al., (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida). Represented interactive computer service provider against nutraceutical weight loss manufacturer’s claims of, among other things, tortuous interference because defendants knowingly maintained negative posts on their website in violation of a “gag clause” appearing in plaintiff’s sales contracts with its customers. In response, the Court recently issued a resounding dismissal of each of plaintiff’s twelve claims, finding that all of them were barred under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.
•	Whitestone Construction Corp. v. Nova Casualty Co., et al., (Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division). Represented general contractor in connection with a breach of contract claim against a sub-contractor and its various alter egos. After obtaining a finding of liability before the lower court, the order was thereafter affirmed by the Appellate Division. Following success on appeal and a resulting trial on damages, judgment was entered against defendants in the amount of $1.7 million dollars.
•	Meyer Corp. U.S. v. Alfay Designs, Inc., et al., (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York). Represented licensor and its principal against a competing licensor alleging claims for tortuous interference with contract, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation and contribution, among other claims. After several years of substantial discovery and contentious motion practice the court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims demanding monetary relief which were well in excess of two million dollars.
•	Consol. Energy Design Inc. v. The Princeton Club of New York, (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Obtained complete dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, including causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and account stated. Plaintiff appealed part the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s order, leaving only a single remaining claim.
•	Heritage of Pride, Inc. v. Matinee NYC, Inc., (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Successfully opposed plaintiff’s motion for civil contempt arising from defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction order barring the use of plaintiff’s trademarks.
•	Modern Empire, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company, (Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County). Successfully opposed insurer’s motion for summary dismissal on each of plaintiff’s claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence and bad faith denial of coverage. The case then settled very favorably in favor of Modern.
The University of British Columbia, LL.M.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 § 230
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.