As you look for a trademark survey expert to assist in your San Francisco litigation, consider Keegan & Donato Consulting. We can deliver persuasive consumer survey evidence that will stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Keegan & Donato Consulting is a leading firm in the field of trademark litigation with more than 25 years of combined experience. We have designed and critiqued hundreds of consumer research studies across a broad range of industries for cases in federal court, state court, the TTAB, the NAD, arbitration hearings, and other specialty venues.

We provide the following services related to trademark and marketing litigation:

• State-of-the-art survey design, implementation, and presentation
• Expert analysis and report preparation
• Expert witness testimony on consumer survey, marketing and economic issues
• Critique and rebuttal of reportsfrom opposing experts
• Damages and forensic economic analyses
• Guidance on the questioning of opposing experts at deposition or trial

Our methodologically sound surveys and meticulous analytical skills have assisted firms across the nation, such as Duane Morris LLP in San Francisco, Cooley LLP in Palo Alto, CA, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and New York City, SmithAmundsen LLP in Chicago, and Hogan Lovells in Washington, DC.

The Value of Hiring a Consumer Survey Expert

Survey evidence can be powerful, but consumer surveys are typically not accepted without challenge. Courts demand accurate, real-world data, and a poorly designed and methodologically flawed survey can result in partial or full exclusion from the case. Hiring qualified survey experts will help prevent your survey from coming under attack.

In Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 140 F.Supp.2d 241 – Dist. Court, E.D. New York (2001), for example, “the court determined that the results of the [plaintiff’s] surveys were unreliable because of serious flaws in the protocol and methodology,” and ruled in favor of the defendant.

In Troublé v. Wet Seal, Inc., 179 F.Supp.2d 291 – Dist. Court, S.D. New York (2001), the court excluded the survey results offered by the defendant in their entirety. “Given the lack of a proper universe and sample, the poor choice of location, the lack of proper stimuli, and questions that have little or no relevance to issues in the case, the Court finds that the prejudicial effect of [defendant’s] survey substantially outweighs its probative value.”

In Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2015 WL 4545408, No. 5:15–cv–00946 (E.D. PA. May 10, 2016), plaintiff Parks claimed that the defendant’s “Park’s Finest” sausages and hot dogs infringed on its “Ball Park Franks” brand. The Court was critical of methodological flaws in a consumer survey submitted by Parks. It “was not probative of secondary meaning” and “was not directed at the appropriate universe of consumers.” Tyson Foods introduced a consumer survey that showed little evidence of consumer confusion between its Park’s Finest sausages and Parks brand sausages. Tyson Foods prevailed.

These examples illustrate how important it is to choose a qualified survey expert who will be able to withstand cross-examination and explain his or her survey methodology in a clear and concise manner.

When you need a survey expert to help develop a powerful trademark infringement case strategy, Keegan & Donato Consulting can provide the expertise you need. Contact us at (914) 967-9421 to learn more.