Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA788337
`
`Filing date:
`
`12/09/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91210158
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Lundy Law, LLP
`
`MANNY D POKOTILOW
`CAESAR RIVISE BERNSTEIN COHEN & POKOT
`1635 MARKET ST , SEVEN PENN CENTER 12TH FLOOR
`PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
`UNITED STATES
`trademarks@crbcp.com, mlozada@crbcp.com
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Manny D. Pokotilow
`
`Trademarks@crbcp.com, TrademarkPractice@crbcp.com, mloz-
`ada@crbcp.com, wharger@crbcp.com
`
`/s/MPokotilow
`
`12/09/2016
`
`Applicant Lundy Law LLPs Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony Deposition
`of Ross Fishman.pdf(34139 bytes )
`Exh A.pdf(4585780 bytes )
`Exh B.pdf(2143603 bytes )
`Exh C.pdf(47954 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`:
`
`LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91210158
`:
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.S.N. 85/767,757
`:
`
`LUNDY LAW, LLP
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT LUNDY LAW, LLP’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY DEPOSITION OF ROSS FISHMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant Lundy Law, LLP respectfully moves the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
`(the “Board”) to strike the following portions of testimony introduced by Opposer at the
`
`December 6, 2016 testimonial deposition of Opposer’s Expert Ross Fishman:
`
`1. All references in the testimony of Ross Fishman or in Opposer’s Exhibit 2, Mr.
`
`Fishman’s Amended Expert Report, relating to whether the words REMEMBER
`
`THIS NAME functioned as a trademark.
`
`2. Opposer’s Exhibit 3 and any references thereto in the testimony of Mr. Fishman.
`
`3. All references to branding or creating brands in the testimony of Mr. Fishman.
`
`With respect to item 1 above, the testimony should be struck because it has been ruled by the
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in its Opinion of October 31, 2014 that Mr. Fishman’s
`
`qualifications, as set forth in his expert report do not qualify him to testify as an expert in
`
`trademark law. See Fn. 4, Page 5. Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.123 and TMBP Rule 533.02(b),
`
`Applicant moves to strike the foregoing Opposer’s Exhibits 2 and 3 for inadequate notice.
`
`
`
`As a preliminary matter, Applicant notes that 37 CFR § 2.123(e)(3) requires prompt
`
`filing of a Motion to Strike if a party seeks exclusion of that portion of the testimony that was not
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`adequately disclosed in accordance with § 2.121(e). Accordingly this motion is being filed as
`
`soon as possible after the deposition of Ross Fishman was taken on Dec. 6, 2016. Applicant also
`
`requests the opportunity to supplement this Motion with the specific lines and pages of the
`
`transcript of testimony of the deposition which should be struck when it becomes available to
`
`Applicant.
`
`I.
`
`ROSS FISHMAN IS NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE AN OPINION WHETHER
`
`REMEMBER THIS NAME FUNCTIONS AS A TRADEMARK
`
`In the first expert report of Ross Fishman submitted by Opposer in this matter in connection with
`
`the first motion for summary judgment filed by Applicant, Applicant moved to strike all opinions
`
`by Mr. Fishman that were matters of law, including his opinions relating to the law of this case.
`
`The Board in its October 31, 2014 Opinion, stated at Fn. 4, page 5 of the opinion “The Board
`
`notes that Mr. Fishman’s qualifications, as set forth in his expert witness report, do not qualify
`
`him to testify as an expert in trademark law,…” During the deposition, Mr. Fishman testified
`
`that in his opinion REMEMBER THIS NAME did not function as trademark. Further, Opposer
`
`had marked during the deposition as Opposer’s Exhibit 2, the Amended Expert Report of Ross
`
`Fishman, attached as Exhibit A. His entire engagement according to the first paragraph on page
`
`of the report is to give his opinion whether REMEMBER THIS NAME “may be considered a
`
`trademark of a single law firm; whether the phrase as used in the specimens of use that was
`
`submitted with Lundy Law LLP’s trademark application functioned as a trademark; and whether
`
`the phrase ‘Remember this name’ is capable of functioning as a trademark.” During the
`
`deposition Mr. Fishman admitted his qualifications did not in material part change from his
`
`original report. In the Conclusion on page 13 of his report, Exhibit 2, Mr. Fishman concludes
`
`that “The phrase “Remember this name” “does not function as a trademark, it is not a brand,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`consumers would not identify the phrase with any particular company or law firm.” Not only
`
`does the report lack any qualifications of a trademark expert, it also lacks any qualifications in
`
`branding. It also lacks any qualifications of Mr. Fishman to know what consumers think.
`
`Accordingly, there is no basis in the report for the conclusion of the report. Accordingly, at a
`
`minimum the Conclusion should be struck and since the entire purpose of Mr. Fishman’s report
`
`is to give the conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the entire report should be struck.
`
`2.
`
`OPPOSER’S EXHIBIT 3 AND ANY REFERENCES THERETO SHOULD BE
`
`STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD
`
`Exhibit 3, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, was discussed by Mr. Fishman and
`
`introduced by Opposer at the testimonial deposition of Mr. Fishman. The document was never
`
`produced by Opposer during the discovery period and it was not in the Amended Report of Mr.
`
`Fishman. However, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) “The report [of an
`
`expert] must contain; (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the
`
`basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them”. In
`
`this case, the Amended Expert Report of Ross Fishman did not contain the contents of Exhibit 3.
`
`In addition, Opposer had never shown the documents in Exhibit 3 to Applicant prior to the
`
`testimonial deposition of Mr. Fishman. Nor were the exhibits mentioned in the Pretrial
`
`Disclosure Statement of Opposer, attached hereto as Exhibit C. In Wonderbread 5 v. Patrick
`
`Gilles a/k/a Wonderbread 5 and/or Wonderbread Five, 115 USPQ2d 1296, 2015 TTAB LEXIS
`
`261 *3, (TTAB 2015) the petitioner moved to strike the entirety of the deposition of the
`
`respondent. The motion to strike was based in part upon the fact that Respondent failed to
`
`specify in his pretrial disclosures a general summary or list of the types of documents and things
`
`which he intended to introduce as exhibits as required under Trademark Rule 2.121(e), 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`§ 2.121(e). In this respect the Rule requires “a general summary or list of the types of documents
`
`and things which may be introduced as exhibits during the testimony of the witness.”
`
`The Board then stated (at *3):
`
`In the event improper or inadequate pretrial disclosures are served, Trademark Rule
`
`2.123(e)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 2.123(e)(3), provides in relevant part:
`
`A motion to strike the testimony of a witness for lack of proper or adequate pretrial
`
`disclosure may seek exclusion of the entire testimony, when there was no pretrial
`
`disclosure, or may seek exclusion of that portion of the testimony that was not adequately
`
`disclosed in accordance with § 2.121(e).
`
`To determine whether the Board should grant a motion to strike testimony the Board then stated
`
`in Wonderbread:
`
`The Board, depending on the circumstances presented, considers the following five factor
`
`test: 1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be offered; 2) the
`
`ability of that party to cure the surprise; 3) the extent to which allowing the testimony
`
`would disrupt the trial; 4) the importance of the evidence; and 5) the nondisclosing
`
`party's explanation for its failure to disclose the evidence.
`
`The answer to part 1 of the five part test is that Applicant had never seen these document before
`
`they were introduced by the Opposer at the deposition of its expert witness Ross Fishman. As to
`
`part 2 of the five factor test, Applicant cannot cure the surprise of seeing these documents for the
`
`first time and not being able to evaluate them, to determine their genesis and properly cross-
`
`examine the witness. Allowing the testimony related to the documents in Exhibit 3 would
`
`require a possible rewriting by Applicant’s Expert Harlan Schillinger of his expert report,
`
`retaking the deposition of Ross Fishman, and, putting off the trial for more than a month to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`accommodate the parties and their counsel’s schedules. As to part 4, the importance of the
`
`evidence, it is not known at this time without an expensive study whether any of the
`
`advertisements or articles containing the word “remember this name” were even used, whether
`
`the words “remember this name” were used as a trademark, and, if used as a trademark whether
`
`the use(s) were prior to that of Applicant. With respect to part 5 of the five factor test, “the
`
`nondisclosing party's explanation for its failure to disclose the evidence,” Applicant does not yet
`
`have a copy of the transcript. As best Applicant’s counsel recalls what Mr. Fishman said at the
`
`deposition, something said in the report of Harlan Schillinger, Applicant’s Expert, triggered Mr
`
`Fishman’s search for uses of the words “remember this name” by others. In light of the above
`
`facts, Applicant will be unduly prejudiced if Opposer’s Exhibit 3 is not struck from the record as
`
`are all of the statements made by Ross Fishman relevant to the exhibit.
`
`3. ALL REFERENCES OF ROSS FISHMAN TO BRANDING, HIS
`
`EXPERIENCE WITH BRANDING OR CREATING BRANDS SHOULD BE
`
`STRUCK FROM THE TESTIMONY OF ROSS FISHMAN
`
`During the deposition Mr. Fishman testified to experience he had with respect to branding and
`
`creating advertisements for law firms. As can be seen from a review of Mr. Fishman’s Expert
`
`Report, attached as Exhibit A, he had never set forth as a qualification any experience with
`
`branding. As set forth above, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) “The report [of
`
`an expert] must contain; (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the
`
`basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them”. In
`
`this case, the Amended Expert Report of Ross Fishman did not contain the basis of his
`
`qualifications to make any statement with respect to brands or branding. Accordingly, having
`
`failed to inform in the Amended Expert Report any qualifications to express an opinion on
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`branding, Mr. Fishman should not be able to express any opinion in his report or in the
`
`testimonial deposition about branding. For the same reasons that the five part test is applicable
`
`to exclude Opposer’s Exhibit 3, the testimony concerning brands or branding should be
`
`excluded. Also the Pretrial Disclosure Statement of Opposer also stated that Mr. Fishman would
`
`be discussing “Generic or descriptive use of REMEMBER THIS NAME in the context of
`
`advertising. There was nothing said in the Pretrial Disclosure Statement about branding.
`
`4. CONCLUSION
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(the “Board”) should strike the following portions of testimony introduced by Opposer at the
`
`December 6, 2016 testimonial deposition of Opposer’s Expert Ross Fishman:
`
`1. All references in the testimony of Ross Fishman or in Opposer’s Exhibit 2, Mr.
`
`Fishman’s Amended Expert Report, relating to whether the words REMEMBER
`
`THIS NAME functioned as a trademark.
`
`2. Opposer’s Exhibit 3 and any references thereto in the testimony of Mr. Fishman.
`
`3. All references to branding or creating brands in the testimony of Mr. Fishman.
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` CAESAR RIVISE, PC
`
`
`
`By: /s/ MPokotilow
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Manny D. Pokotilow
` 1635 Market Street
` 12th Floor - Seven Penn Center
` Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212
`
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorneys for Applicant Lundy Law, LLP
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the within APPLICANT LUNDY LAW, LLP’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE is being electronically filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,
`via the Electronic System for Trademark Trial and Appeals (ESTTA) on December 9, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ MPokotilow
`Manny Pokotilow
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on December 9, 2016, the within APPLICANT
`LUNDY LAW, LLP’S MOTION TO SRIKE is being served upon Opposer, via email and First
`Class Mail in an envelope addressed to:
`
`
`Jacqueline Lesser
`Baker & Hostetler LLP
`Cira Centre – 12th Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ MPokotilow
`Manny Pokotilow
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`
`IN THE llNl'l'l‘Cli H'I'W'I‘IIZS I’A'l‘IGN'I‘ AND 'I'RAI'H'IIV ARK ()F'li‘lffli‘.
`HICIi‘OIUtZ 'l‘l-llt‘. 'I'RAIHCMARK TRIM... AND Al’l’lilAL BOAR!)
`
`LARRY l"|'l'"l" 8:. ASStL'L)(."lA'l‘lIiS. P13.
`
`{,flpposer,
`
`‘v‘.
`
`LUN DY l..AW. l..l.l’
`
`Applieant
`
`Opposition No. ()lilltllfili
`
`AMENDICEEXPICR'I‘ lflflflflufigli‘ RUSH li‘lHl-IMAN
`
`1.
`
`Assignment:
`
`t have [teen engaged by the t')pposer. Larry Pitt die Associate-s. Pi... to offer my opinion regarding;
`use rifting phrase. “Henmmlier this name." whieh is the subject Urtt lI‘I-ldeittm'it applieat‘ien Oi"
`Lundy Law l.t..l’. under Apple. No. 85/767757. and whether this phrase may be considered a
`trademark ol'a single law firm; whether the phrase as used in the specimens of use that were
`submitted with laindy Law |.| P‘s trademark applieation i‘enetiornal as a trademarlu and whether
`the phrase “Reaieml-ier this name" is capable of time-timing as a tradentm‘k. This opinion revises
`my earlier sni‘nnission in View of the Board‘s deeisionoi'tlletolier31.2014 and the Amended
`Notice of“(.')]3rn'isition tiled on November 13.2014, and Answer filed on leteeemlier 2. 20 till.
`
`My (tpiuions set t'erth below are based on my esperienee as a marketing: eonsuilant for law firms.
`my evaluation ot'the documents provided to me. wliieli are noted in Seetion V. and documents in
`my possession.
`i reserve the right to update and supplen‘tent my report if additional n‘iaterials are
`provided to me during, this proeeetzling.
`
`ti.
`
`Professional Qtuilii‘ieatians
`
`I
`
`'1 wenty-l'iw years as a full-time law l'irnt nuirttetion pl‘oiessiontti. litttttttitrd RUSH l'iia'ittttittt
`Marketing. lmr. (now d/lu‘a tl‘islnnan Maritetiiut. Inc.) in IOUS. As (Stilt) ot'l’isinnan
`Marketing. loo” 1 help law t‘inns develop differentiation strategies and ereative nuii'lmtiee=
`eninpnipns. This includes marketing. planning: branding. differentiation and positioning;
`praeiiee-pJ-onp netrketing: and the development ol'eollateral materials inelutlinn. Lap.
`:nlrertisine. websites. lu'eelnires. em.
`
`\v. Luitdy Law. l,1.t’
`Larry Pitt (9:. Associates, l".(.j?,
`(Itpraztsition No:
`‘5)
`l
`'.1 l (l t fill
`(.tpposer‘s tisliihii TIP
`
`

`

`1 held two iii-house t'tnn'ltetiini positions - l’nhlie l'tclnlions Monoger :ind Mttrltetitng.
`Director ol‘Silt‘lnnttorney Winston 8i Stt'ttwn. 19‘.l(}»l‘J‘)r-‘l; tttlti Client Service tnnl
`Mnritetin; l’tn'tner ol‘t'fol‘liclti Ulltflauretti e i‘itll'l'ifi
`i99x-‘l- l 997.
`
`l"inhrnnn Murltelii‘tg (li‘M') hits erenteil marketing; cttmptiitgtts [in over l5“ law firms.
`
`l have presented otter Rot} inorltct'itngatrttininn int-iiitgi‘itiiis l'or lawyers tnnl t'tntt'ltotcrs
`worldwide, for n wide range ol’grottos, "l'hese it'tchtde. e.i__r,.: (l) individual low firms like
`Jones Day and ('jiihstni Dunn (it: Crrtteher‘. (2) l‘tillilllltti‘ stole itnd locttl her :tssocintions like
`the Amerienn Bur Assoeintion (Atari)~ Wisconsin liinr Assoeintion, and (Tliiconn Bur
`Assoeintiou (EBA): {Ll} low-reinted orgnoimtions like the Lentil lvlnrketiug, Associtnion
`(livid). Associntion ol‘ Lentil Administrators (ALA). nod College til” inn-v Practice
`Management: («-1) lawyer groups like the litigation Counsel ()irihlt‘itll'ittti (loci/t],
`l’ederntion oi' Helense nod (jfiii-iiiit'iitt: Counsel (li‘lTXiKIU. nod l‘ei'lerutioo c'il’Reigulntory
`(.L'onosei (1“(1'.)l-t(,fi); (‘5') ioternntiotntl low lirn‘t networks lilte Meritnst l..,owyers Associnted
`Worldwide ll.../-\W). nnd loteriutlitmol [sewers Network (Heel); end ((1) various
`itttertnitionnl orgamimtions like The Asin-l"nciiie l‘h'tjtl'essitjnn-tl Services Manltctirng,
`Assoeintion (Al‘HM/t). and Asian Prtnluetivitv (Thetntizotion (APO).
`
`li‘M enmpoigns have; received dozens ol‘ lirstnpittee ll't‘ipi‘lifl'S from the 35ii0~lhcniiit3f
`intertnttiointl Lentil Mnrlteling Association (or "LA/1A." throterly NAl.‘l-‘MA. the Notionol
`Asstiieintion ol'Lntv Firm Mothering). for o wide rouge ot‘oreotive nun-[toting continuities
`and categories, 'litese include the LMA‘s optional Best ot’i-T-I'iow nword live ol' the ten
`times ever presented; no other lirtn or agency lots ever received it more then once. in loot,
`the Rent ol' Show luvm'd \vztn created in i906 Specifically so that our entry in the LMNS
`“Your Honor Awni'ds" would win one it'ttttti '|‘Jt'i'f.t: insteenl tJi-licttl‘i)‘ :‘tli (Jilin: itniivititntl
`trophies tit the notional eonlereoee. Additit‘nntl honors include:
`
`o
`
`lo 19%. our Service (inoraunee etunnnign received one oi‘lne. int-ignzaine's ten
`inititntnl iVilll'iiCtiillH NitIHICI'h awards [in "hriilit'ntt tlitti stitccessi‘itl" It't:t]'lx't:lint;.
`o Recipient ol'tt lnrernseleetetl LMA 1098 l..il‘etinte Achievement Award.
`o One oi" Your lentil nun'lteters selected for induction into the I..MA‘s itnnttnn'nl I‘ioll
`oi home
`
`in Selected (ti; o liollow ot‘tite College ol'lntw l‘rnctice Mitotigemcnti
`it; My nrtiele, "A Personal lliszrn'y (tl‘ [saw Mnrltcling" received the Ali/Vs 2006
`"Silver liitlne Award.“ for one ol‘tite hest :n‘ticles written thin your in Line Pints/tire
`(at‘ltH‘it-i’jflii'lfi't.”i/ Itiniinzitte.
`
`I
`
`(rented whnt we helieve to he the lentil I'JI‘ulilttsion's lit‘st:
`r1
`(,"mnpnter Lynne. l'tn' Ut't‘iclt.
`{a
`liHHnllninL-d :nlvorlisiln;~ lin' Sterne. Kesnler‘ (Tittldslein (Q: lion Wild“
`it Total Quality hrlzntnnenwnt ('I'QM) initiative. l‘or Winston i'e. Htrnwn
`o
`li‘irtn-‘wide crossusellinn ornitrntn for El l'lilljtil' law firm. t'or Winston tilt. Hti'nwn.
`r:
`(‘omhioed tow sclnnil rect'uituni/Innrltclinn cmnpninn. For iicrtWiek (51'. West.
`
`I Written htnnireds ol‘hylined urtieles. including six reinilnr ettltnttnn.
`
`“F
`
`

`

`i";
`
`l-iylincci .‘,i|'liGi(f:§-i include. pubiicnlimm inullii'iing. Tim Nuhmml Luv-J Juui'mit
`l‘VrH'ii.’
`("Mimigu [Jungian Lilian! Timmy .hu'uri imiiliiirl, Nuiiim '5‘ Hir.$‘iili.‘,\‘.\',
`.‘a'ilr.fi.'::'.\‘.\'.
`'I‘i'i‘n/i‘r, J’i'r'ifijam'irumi' Mar/(Cum; Wm fit..'m.'fi:i'. Lii‘minii'A'
`i-i"i;'i.'ki_l«' thi. The (.i'lfmiwi
`Prim!ifir'mifl‘. Lam» (Mice: iiii'i'iirrirgismurn! .-'iu’mim'.i‘(n1'iiirm Rayburn Adi-L‘iA'NT-‘iiHA'i-‘H-N'
`.Lriwviu'x ii’l-rirkiii. r'lb'x‘l Jinn-mil, Law ildur‘lccfii'ng IE.\'c.rlichri,i:i1. ("uminririinrur Lem
`'Il'ihrmu‘, Mui‘kcn'n‘sgflir Lrniiym‘a'.
`'I'i'lii
`I'S’i'i'i-g'fi.'iimu, (,"iiiinJ‘ign A'fiii,;i.i.':irita'.\‘ Bria-i'niax'i‘
`.‘x'm-w'lru/ (juidu, (I'iifi.'rilsgrx [infill Lam! Buil'telii'r. and nmny “mm.
`o Mummy m- recurring Ctiillil‘il‘lli inciudu:
`'- AHA’S Law I’I'm;'n'i:i.' Humming “What Rll‘rlALl..Y Wm'lis" (I‘mmlhiy. 2007"
`2008)
`I AHA iv Mm! ["rui'ir‘m: A“!(..'H:J|§_"i;.’)ifl£iH, “i’ruulicu Duvclm‘miunl (Tililm:
`Nc:w Wm'lljl ni‘i.:iw Practice Mm'lmlilm" (imniilhiy. IQQQ-Iflilii)
`'- Hiiimix 1.“;ng 'i‘r'nms- “What (in: Client Sim" (:mmlhly. 19% "1993)
`I
`(L‘uqmimc mega! filling-v.9, (,Ti'flus‘nniSl "l’mm ilk: Cch Film; ()l‘ Phillip
`Muriaw. (ii(1f”(mnni|iiy, 1W 1 - l 992)
`- Mari-mini; Legit! Sari-#91453 AHA l'i'lill‘iifliil‘ly,11CWRiCllGI'(llllilllliiy.
`'- Wm Frunirlii’xu l-lundimnk, legal eiiilumnisi (qmmuriy, Willi-931)
`I
`(L'mrmmn-Lg lcgnl milumnisl. Chimin Assuuiniiun (JiiCUIIllliUI‘UU and
`industry i‘i‘iilifililifili‘lu (ramnll-ily. 1988-1900)
`
`'l'lm
`
`l‘J‘Jil-UT”)
`
`I
`
`.
`
`I
`
`I :im the Bill .i-Elllrl chairman ol'llic [Hi-Hui Marketing, Asmcimiizn'i’s i'ilhics Tilt-iii l’m'cc.
`
`[l‘igllmnn Mm‘lmiing hm; rcprumcuiciji many [liilil‘llil‘i‘jfi l'il'mfi mu! pm'a‘mml injury pl'auliuus
`(in: well :15 utlicr “i-cinil“ m' Cmmunmr-micmml pi'auliuus like (livuruc and Grimm-“ii
`across Nurlh Amuriuu. including; firms in (3.3,. Illinois, I7-‘lm'iiiu. Kentucky. Hunsew and
`\f'mmmwr. W,“
`
`I Jim :1 member ul‘llw. iliilh‘)i5 l-im', mill :1 grnciumi': ul‘ iiium'n'y Univureiily Sulmnl ul'l..uw.
`.i.l').
`llils'fi.
`
`iii.
`
`(Inmpmmmiim
`
`l have imam engiiguii liy Larry Pill Al: ASSUUiiIlGH as u ltlfiiiiiyillf‘; thpurl in liliH Uppusilion. My
`lmm‘ly rulu ii;
`.‘iiI-‘lfili. My cmnpmmniimi iii nut unnlingunl on (he. {JLIlCL‘iI‘l‘iC oi'lhis :luiicm.
`
`iV.
`
`(Times in which, during Ihc previous 4 years. 1 have Icstiliml :IS an expert at Iriui M
`by titrpnsiiiun;
`
`iii-"Wham M,
`[fin/mm I“ Huhm-h v,
`Milwaukee (bum. Wimrmnia‘li.
`
`Vi
`
`R'Iillt'i‘iuih‘ Hovivwmi
`
`( 'mmriii. u! H]. (inset: NI). “MTV-131.10 (Cil'cuil (."i‘nn'l.
`
`i i'cviirwccl the liiili‘iwiny, mulcrinih':
`
`a“
`
`("‘unipiniul in Mindy j.(Hl-’. LL!" 1L [dimly I’m cli ulsgs'm’fiHM, f’i'. (:ilSL‘ Ii: l Enuwlil Nil-ii iii
`(“‘l'rmiunmrk lnii'inigcmcm Hull“)
`
`

`

`h. Motion For a preliminary injunction in 'l‘ratlentat‘lt lnli'ineetnont Suit
`e. Response to nnition for preliminary ininneiion in 'Irailentark lnt'rinneirietn Suit
`rte Notice ol' (ilpprialtion
`o, Annwer to Notice til‘('f)pponlliolt
`t'. Lunrly Law’s; motion for Btll'l‘il‘t'tttt')"ltltltgpncnl
`g. The Board’s (Jitter ol‘ (“letoher 3 t, it) t It
`It. The Ainentletl Notiee t'il'lllppt‘mltlt'm
`i.
`linnt'ly latw‘u Answer to the Amended Notiee ol‘ Opposition
`_i.
`Luntly Law Attvei'tisirng, sulnnitteo in the Opposition proeeetlhnr, that has not been
`designator! “'l'RAl'JlF. 813CMill/COMMliilttjlALLY SIEINSI‘T‘IVlTl/A'l"l"tj)lll‘~llii‘r"53 IEYIES
`t')Nt..‘i“‘
`
`in the ()ppt‘inition proeeecjtintr
`
`to Third party mtvertiainn t‘or Rl’ilVIlfilMl'ilitR "l‘l-tlS NAMt-i amt Rti-Zh/ttiMltllR ‘1'} NH
`NlJMItlI-‘il‘t
`
`l.
`
`l.‘l.\£.'lt'l‘lplt.ttt of other :nlverliaenienta ot‘attori‘iey hillhoartl advertising, eonnttn'alne to Intittty
`Law‘a Atlvertininig.
`
`Vi.
`
`Analysis
`
`'l‘ltia analysis is set out in three parts. The first part is a “lVlartcetinp, Analynin“ on the types ot‘ law
`firm advertising. and in particular the kinds nt‘ advertising morn often used by pet-sigma! injury law
`lions. The second part nian the personal injury advertisement. and provides examples. The
`thirtl part atutlymn Lnntly law‘s atl untler thin rnln-iei
`
`a. MarketingAnalysis
`
`the marketing; o l' legal services (lifters sulnstantially according, to the types; ol‘nervieen that an:
`provitletl. l'~'ii'nu: that li'ieuu on eorporate or institutional legal uorvioou tend to have lining-term
`relationships with their CllCl'IlHi prewitlinp, ongoing legal nervieen. Marketing, for tlteae tiorvieen in
`l'oeuuerl on DUI'St‘iltttl eonnoetionu, relationship-innloin}; anti loan-term interaction. On the other
`hand lawyer}: providing perarmnl legal Horvioea for a eonnnmer-orienterl practice. aneli an
`[)CI‘HOllEll injury. l'an‘iiiy law, iti'ttt'iipt‘:itiiiii antl debtor’s bankruptey. tziopentl on a volume ot'eaaeu
`that is often generated h),- tt(lVL‘l‘llSl|ll__’_ the lion’s Services.
`
`iVlarltolitnfig. of legal] aervieen by a personal injury lirin requires an llllll‘tttlttlt ton horir.ontal marlteti
`‘l'hat la. potential elients can be from all walks ot'lil'e, with the only eoinnion tlenoi‘riinator l-ieinp,
`tho ininry that gives rise to the need for the representation Law firm names antl trtu‘le littntea‘ are
`important t‘or all lit-n15. but especially so t'or tltt‘ise representiin; plaintil'l‘n in peruonal injury
`lllttllL‘t'h who are reaehinp, out to that hroarl marketplace.
`
`'l‘he
`The nature of marketing; a pernonal injury service. involvca building i‘iaine recognition.
`objective is to create a recognized lirantl, Many elienlrt who turn to (lthQI‘llSlllg to lintt a lam-yer
`(ll‘l) thorn: who have not “Hill a lawyer liel‘ore and on: not linniliar With other tWL‘HltL‘S to ttucuh‘h‘ it
`lawyer,
`'l'liei'eliLii-e. the nilvei‘tiuiinr eainpainn prt‘ivitlos visibilin to :t lusts-rinlhrntetl market
`newnenl and in used to er *ate the pereeption olaltill amt sueeertu.
`
`M a general atlverliniin; principle. htllllt': :ulvertiaemt‘utta for goods or Services are high eoneept.
`livor_\rtl;1_\,r we nee eoi‘nntereinln that :in‘nnte in; or onlertain tin. ninth in: the. talking, tittl't‘tel
`ll‘tttl wnllttt
`
`it].
`
`

`

`tln'nnph the nl'liee rm Wednesdays asking people what (lay it is, ire. Hump Day. the prnblem
`many at thes : ads have train a marketing perspeetive is that they are net immediater asseeiated
`with the grants or serviees they are selling, and taelt the reeeanitien te matte them sueeesst'ut.
`
`Persnnal injury law firms an the ether hand are extraerdinarily direet in terms ntthe serviee they
`are marketing and the reenp‘nitinn nt'tbeir name, which distinguishes them l‘rnm ail nther firms
`that prnvide similar serviees.
`
`h.
`
`l..nndy law‘s Advertisements
`
`The law thin that nperates under the trade name “lamdy Law” has been sueeesst‘ttl iii the
`prnmntien at" its name ~--l,nndy Law tl'trnntth its marketing, strategies. The natne is simple.
`eeneise. easy tn recall, and includes an alliteration within the name The sale ennnnnn
`dent‘nninatnr amrmp, all el‘the advertising, for the firm is this simple name i- laurdy Law.
`
`Seine advertising; for latndy Law uses the general phrase “Remember this name" as a prelude tn
`the brand natne el‘ lamdy Law. that is: “Remember this name‘ latndy laws" tinwever. the lirm
`is inennsistent with the ttse nl'the phrase.
`In some :nlvertisernentst the phrase “Remember this
`name“ does net appear at all. he example in the lirm‘s l.,itiltetlln and ‘r‘t'ntTnhe nee-taunts. Alisa.
`the phrase “Reit‘retnber this name.” is generally presented as part (it"a lat-per statement. tier
`example1 the l...nntly Law Website inelnrles videns that earl with the statement. “You only have tn
`do one thing. Rentember this name, l.,.nntly Law.“ lhthlie advertising uses “lt‘titn‘eti'? Remember
`this mime."
`
`(finns'rdering bath the inennsistent use, er absence ril'nse.~ nl'the phrase “Remember this name"
`within the marketing at" Lnndy Law and the nature el‘tbe term itself". nethinp about the phrase
`brinps it antler the umbrella at" the l'irn‘i’s hrantL whieh is simply “latndy Law?" From the
`marketing perspeetive. “Remember this name” is net a trademark that sheuld give the firm any
`exelnsive use.
`
`“Remember this name“ represents the (infective: el‘the advertisement, net the identity nl‘the
`brand. The advertisement is designed tn enermratte peeple tn ltnew the brand
`“Ltutrly Law."
`The use. at the phrase ret'leets that which Lnntty Law wants to aeliieve. that viewers til‘its
`advertisements will t'tHl'tLtl'tli‘tCtt‘ l..uncity Law.
`
`"Rernember this name“ and phrases that latndy Law believes are enntparable terms. en.
`“Remember our number." are brim; used in advertisements bnth within in and nutsitle el'tbe
`lentil industry See Attaelnnent A. ‘l‘hese nsapes. Iilte that nl‘lsnndy Law. are merely tteneric
`statements that are tit-sinned tn drive the [antential elient tn the brand name 'l'liey tin nnt deserve
`trademark prnteetinn. (j‘ansnmers tln nnt recognize this Hlitlstttt‘ttl£15t'tt'itttmtlitltsWith O'N- Idill“ t”
`immunity.
`the uses that an: stun-in in this attachment are instructive ttl‘tlis ssnst'ttl “as nt‘ths
`phrase Within the titll‘liL‘Ni til'tltlt‘il‘ttey advertising.
`
`
`
`
`Iiiil7thAW.Witltltt-‘.|I.~.tit.til.”I rash tam" it!ll‘tititt‘i‘tYW-itltth-ltt!43}2.!tlit‘t.t'.tl.lit'll)“iIttttifisdttttzi
`’
`
`httpa:t/www.Mtutube.
`tilt/\K':tlt2it'?V‘=t-‘-iVl’b'i'Sieils'i“;
`.‘I
`
`

`

`The phrase “Remember this mune” as used by i.ttt'lt'i_Y Lew is desipned to drive potential eliertts
`to the Lirme an nnme. Lunigiy Lew uses “Remember this ttttttte“ ittet‘tttsislettli)’. i‘tCh‘JI'L" its
`umne, und its l-tit)lt~l.l.lNl.Wt./\W number. Neither “Remember this ititttte” nor “Remember
`this number” (its used by Istl‘t‘)’ Pitt in its own rttlvet'tisingl. or the other instrnetious to emit n firm
`is s brttnd or tritdeinttrlt
`it is simply what we call in the rutu'ketinn industry as it “enll to tie-lion."
`whieh I discuss below.
`
`On its website, Loud),r Lew suites L‘Itemtnttber this name“ t'ollowed not by the ntttne. but by the
`lion’s telephone number (l-tit‘)ti-l..l.lNl.)Y LA W). The embedded videos on thttt website stttte.
`“You only here to do one thing. Remember this ntnne. Lundy tinw.“ ‘t'he Lumiy lbw Yott‘l'ube
`Videos use “LN-ill us today!" instead ot"‘l'<etnetnber this Hittite.”
`
`l..:trry Pitt «81-. Associates. like other lsw firms uses the phrase “Remember this utunher.“ 'l'ltis
`ndvertisiinr, nlwnys and only rel‘ers to the lirrnis number
`1-388-11’1'lfl'i" LAW» Milli)” I‘tt‘t‘i‘it‘ttmi
`injury firms have it phone. number retnted to the firtth ntnne. An ettsy-vto--reinetnher tt‘:le|‘thntte
`number is so importnnt to some htwyers, that they pitrlieipnte in pr‘t'n__u'ttttis than lieertse phone
`numbers lilte l-tllttt-l lUR'l" ill 1. These innnbers tire :ts ii‘ttegi'ztl to the msrketitng, ot‘the tirin‘s
`serviees its any aspect ol‘their itc‘lvertisiuti.
`
`Just us some lnw tirms, besides [study Low. use the phrase “Remember this tunne,“ other t'irms
`use the phrsse “Remember this rurntber.“ See Attachment it. in no institnee do the pbrttses
`“Remember this mune” or “Remember this number“ euut‘use potential elients.
`‘I'beso tire
`generie phrases than stress the importance ot’n pnrtiettlztr tirtn‘s ntn'ne. or telephone number to
`eneottrnpp .‘t potentinl pltiintil‘i‘to Citii
`it when it needs the SCI'Vit‘ICH provided by the firm.
`“tternember this“ with either the word “ttztttte” or “number” is not :1 breed or trztdetttttt‘k thitt is
`eselttsive to one law firm.
`
`e.
`
`listtmples ot‘t’ersonnt Injury lisw Firm Ads
`
`i-‘tW tii'm
`Since personal injury representation is often “one ot'l" enses. the etient ot'ten ehooses :t
`bits-ed on public ndvertisiup tittd eatis tt lii'ru :tl‘ter it hits seen it pttblie nd. Personal injury law
`i'iruts use public advertising; to etipture It possible elient tit the point that they are thinltint; about
`their “eh-rim.” while the)r tu'e headed to work. riding, ti bus. wsllting down the street. An nd‘s
`htyout is very simple“ to the point. tutti hits et‘tn‘ttttott key ernnpt‘inents:
`
`t.
`
`A Headline
`
`It is generally l'itlittwetl by n sttpnestitttt to
`"I‘his grnhs the. runwunwr‘s ttttettlittu.
`call the line number. The hendline tttltts to the potentinl client who looks :tl the
`nd and says to hintseli'm “Yes. i tint injured." “Yes. I Isnl tut tteeitlent.“ “tits” 1
`should ettll this firm."
`
`2.
`
`(,‘i'ny area.
`
`This is tt'ttt‘isitiottnl test from the bettdliue -‘
`
`it most ot'ten instructs tI consumer to
`
`it“ titt”li3li'i”t:tt or prtwit‘les some other intin'mutir‘nt. there not sever-‘3'
`tt'ttttsititttttti text.
`
`lt‘ttt‘fi it"
`
`it
`
`b
`
`

`

`u. A garmric phmsc. such as “mm cull, [Inn‘s :1!!.”“uu The unli! we win."
`I). A call [u actinn, This is an hmh'nclinn In lhu viuwur; :1 C(‘mmmncl 01-11
`30m such nH un irmu'nclim to cull lhu law firm fur :‘uul'uscntulinn. The
`call 10 action can impnri :1 higJ-l luvul ul‘m'gunuy {“ll)n;m‘l wuit! Cull
`tudzlyl“). or sound IL‘SS urgcm as. in “Iujumd‘? lluuwn'lhcr IhiH mum"
`"Injured Al Wurk? In an Acuitium'? Rumumhcr [his numhmx“
`c, A Hiugnu
`this is usually a rhyme (Le. "I‘Banlcr (jfall Haul), m' an
`aililurnticm),
`
`3.
`
`(Suntan information. “l‘hu firm mum: and number.
`
`In much irmlnnuc, the headline and the. coulqu inihl‘mnliun an: in 61056 nauticizuiun.
`Law ml is u prululypix‘ml “mi! 1:: uclinn” ML
`
`'l'hc Lundy
`
`I-Im-u :m: cxmnplcu ufllurdnpurly law firm newcnixing Hun zu'u Himilu r m the Lumly Law m1:
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`

`

`mwmwwwwmmw
`
`MM 1h
`
`mm mm,
`
`U
`
`

`

`
`WmmgthmmmWym
`fiDD.W5w.fifl54
`“I nWMWMn-Ipmfimll
`
`
`
`
`
`‘ ~?§.,'w‘§:“~"$§§$»‘.“
`
`r.
`am? WW
`
`,
`
`' m %?1%§13E{;
`
`4% “w " "
`‘
`.‘
`'/ 'v’p‘i
`Er"
`m-fififln
`.'
`.
`fl!
`‘.
`
`
`p -‘
`
`.‘
`
`‘.
`
`'
`
`,9
`«55 w?“ "\‘r‘lfiw
`[f
`a
`r.
`..Iwe 1
`SW4
`imam»: 3w :
`
`v
`
`I!)
`
`H]
`
`

`

`the WUl‘ll “injured” grabs the potential pluintil'l'. Alter tluit. there is u
`In each advertisement
`“eull tu tietiuu“
`the potential pluintil'i' is instructed to (in snnmthing
`tu eunutet the firm, The
`advertisement g