1. Business lawyer New York: Case background and dispute overview
The plaintiff began selling products by changing its company name to our client’s product name, creating immediate marketplace confusion.
When challenged, the plaintiff filed suit claiming a right of prior use.
The plaintiff adopted the client’s product name as its new corporate name, continued operating an online store using that name, and only altered the store title when the portal demanded clarification.
A business lawyer familiar with New York unfair-competition and trademark-infringement standards immediately identified these actions as deliberate attempts to misappropriate established goodwill.
This initial pattern of behavior formed the foundation of our defense strategy.
Plaintiff’s strategic claim of prior use
Once sued for unlawful use of the name, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit asserting a supposed right of prior use.
The defense demonstrated that this argument lacked factual basis because the plaintiff changed its name only after being formally asked to cease using the trademark.
Evidence showed that all allegedly “prior” uses occurred after receiving cease-and-desist communications.
2. Business lawyer New York: Establishing deliberate trademark and design infringement
To rebut the plaintiff’s claims, our business lawyer team gathered and organized digital evidence showing that consumers were being misled.
This evidence became decisive under New York trademark principles, which emphasize likelihood of confusion and intent.
Evidence showing consumer deception
Search results from major portals displayed our client’s trademark and the plaintiff’s new corporate name simultaneously, demonstrating close association.
Customers who purchased the plaintiff’s items left reviews complaining that they received products different from “A,” the mark used by our client.
These objective marketplace indicators showed real confusion, satisfying key elements of New York infringement analysis.
Demonstrating willful infringement and commercial harm
The timeline revealed that the plaintiff maintained the confusing product name in its online storefront until the portal issued a notice demanding justification for trademark use.
Only then did the plaintiff modify the store title.
The defense emphasized that such conduct met the criteria for willful infringement, given repeated actions taken after formal notification.
Our client’s accumulated reputation, quality standards, and consumer trust were shown to be jeopardized by these acts.
3. Business lawyer New York: Defense strategy and courtroom arguments
The litigation focused on eliminating the plaintiff’s claim of prior use and establishing that the plaintiff’s conduct constituted actionable infringement.
A business lawyer’s targeted legal strategy allowed the court to evaluate the case on documented facts rather than unsupported assertions.
Challenging the alleged prior-use right
The defense presented evidence that all relevant acts by the plaintiff post-dated the cease-and-desist notice.
Business records, domain logs, and store-name revision histories contradicted every component of the plaintiff’s argument.
Under New York standards, prior use must occur in good faith and before knowledge of another’s mark, neither of which applied.
Showing risk to brand value and long-standing reputation
We stressed that allowing the plaintiff’s claim to stand would destabilize the value of the client’s trademark, causing severe damage to business credibility.
Because portal searches placed the two entities side-by-side, and dissatisfied consumers associated inferior products with the client’s mark, the risk of lost market share was significant.
This was central to persuading the court that dismissal of the claim was the only equitable outcome.
4. Business lawyer New York: Court ruling and implications for trademark enforcement
The court rejected the plaintiff’s lawsuit in its entirety.
The court concluded that the plaintiff’s adoption of the disputed name created direct confusion, particularly because online searches produced both the client’s trademark and the plaintiff’s corporate name together.
Customer complaints showed that buyers believed they were receiving the client’s product but obtained different goods.
Based on these findings, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of prior-use rights had no merit.
Our business lawyer can help maintain evidence of consumer confusion, preserve portal-search data, and document notification timelines.
02 Dec, 2025
