Decisions of Interest
Rodney A. Brown, P.C., formerly known as Brown & Whalen, P.C. represented:
1. Martal Cosmetics, Ltd. (“Martal”), as the Plaintiff in a trademark counterfeiting lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, against various individual and corporate Defendants, in the matter captioned Martal Cosmetics, Ltd. v. International Beauty Exchange, Inc., et al., Index No. 01–cv–7595 (TLM). After a seven-day bench trial, the District Court Judge issued a ruling in favor of Martal, granting statutory damages of seven hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars, and attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)), against the corporate defendants for willfully infringing on Martal’s trademarks. The Court also found certain individual Defendants to be the moving, active and conscious forces behind the corporate Defendants’ infringement. The ruling was based, in part, on the credibility determinations made during the trial by the Court, which found, in part, Defendants’ testimony to be “riddled with inconsistencies, contradicted time and again by the documentary evidence, contradictory to their own testimony during and prior to trial….” See Martal Cosmetics, Ltd. v. International Beauty Exchange Inc, et al., 2011 WL 3687633 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
2. Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever (“Unilever”), as the Plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against Dina Wein, and various related persons and entities, in the matter captioned Conopco, Inc. d/b/a v. Dina Wein, et al., Index No. 05 Civ. 9899 (RCC)(THK). In its Complaint, Unilever alleged a wide-ranging RICO trade diversion scheme by Defendants, in which Defendants defrauded numerous Fortune 500 consumer product companies. Brown & Whalen was able to adduce through discovery that the Defendants, being aware of the fraudulent nature of their conduct, generated bogus exculpatory documents to cover their tracks. This discovery of the “meta-fraud” as another level of the scheme enhanced Brown & Whalen’s ability to successfully litigate the case on behalf of Unilever, resulting in a multi-million dollar settlement. In addition, the discovery obtained by, and assistance of, Brown & Whalen, led, in part, to the subsequent Federal criminal indictment and conviction of Dina Wein Reis and others. An article, entitled “The Grifter,” appeared in Fortune Magazine’s August 17, 2009, issue, at pages 58-68, highlighted legal actions concerning fraud and trade diversion, including the lawsuit in which Brown & Whalen, P.C., formerly known as The Brown Law Group, P.C., represented Unilever.
3. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (“JJCC”), as the Plaintiff in a trademark counterfeiting lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, against various individual and corporate Defendants, in the matter captioned Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. v. Harry Aini, et al., Index No. 02–cv–6624 (TLM). In a reported decision in this Lanham Act proceeding, United States District Court Judge Dora Irizarry granted JJCC’s motion for summary judgment, in part, on the Lanham Act claims, state law dilution and unfair competition claims. In addition, the Court determined that various Defendants had distributed the counterfeit products at issue “with at least willful blindness, or a reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.” As a result, the Court determined that JJCC may be awarded statutory damages, pursuant to the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)). See Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. v. Harry Aini, et al., 540 F.Supp.2d 374 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
A sampling of the firm’s case history includes:
- Successfully litigating a trade diversion case in a federal district court on behalf of a major consumer product and pharmaceutical Fortune 500 company, culminating in a multi-million dollar settlement;
- Successfully representing a plaintiff at trial in a federal trademark counterfeiting case, in which the Court, after finding willful infringement against the defendants, awarded significant statutory damages and attorneys’ fees;
- Arbitrating and obtaining an award for damages before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in a breach of employment contract against a New York financial services company;
- Successfully obtaining a seven-figure judgment for unpaid broker commissions in a litigation for breach of contract against a well-known gourmet market chain;
- An arbitration and federal trial on behalf of a well-known talent management company, in which the firm successfully represented the client in enforcing its contractual rights and defeated various statutory and common law defenses;
- Obtaining a jury verdict against a software developer on an anticipatory breach of contract claim, resulting in two judgments totaling over seven figures, on behalf of a financial services company;
- Successfully appealing an award of attorneys’ fees, resulting in the reduction of the attorneys’ fees by a substantial amount, from approximately $652,000.00 to $290,000.00;
- Obtaining decisions that have been cited numerous times in the area of sanctions for discovery abuse in New York State and Federal Courts; and
- Successfully arguing a case before the New York State Court of Appeals resolving statutory issues concerning Marshal’s fees.