When you are facing tough evidence in your IP litigation in Providence, RI, trademark survey companies like Keegan & Donato Consulting have the expertise you need.
Keegan & Donato Consulting is a specialty research consultancy located in beautiful Rye, New York, and is one of the most experienced companies in trademark litigation. With more than 30 years of combined experience, proven survey methodologies, and deep operational insight, principals Mark Keegan and Tony Donato are proficient on many topics in the areas of trademark and trade dress, including:
- Likelihood of Confusion Analysis & Surveys
- Secondary Meaning Analysis & Surveys
- Strength of Mark Analysis & Surveys
- Trade Dress Analysis & Surveys
- False & Deceptive Advertising Surveys
- Lanham Act Analysis & Surveys
- Consumer Perception Analysis & Surveys
- Marketing, Damages & Forensic Economic Analyses
- Expert Witness Testimony
- Critique of Opposing Experts’ Studies & Reports
- Deposition & Trial Questioning Advice
Keegan & Donato Consulting has developed surveys for firms that manage some of the largest trademark portfolios in the world, such as Riemer & Braunstein LLP in Boston, Fox Rothschild LLP in New Jersey and Philadelphia, SmithAmundsen LLC in Chicago, Girard Gibbs LLP in San Francisco, and Hogan Lovells in Washington, DC.
Beware: A Flawed Survey Could Damage Your Case
Consumer surveys can play an essential role in proving the likelihood of confusion, secondary meaning, strength of mark, acquired distinctiveness, genericness, consumer perception, and other issues when no other scientific evidence is available.
The evidence can be robust, but consumer surveys are not typically accepted without challenge. Courts scrutinize them for methodological flaws. Issues of sample selection, interviewer bias, or suggestive wording may cause a judge to give a survey little weight or deem some or all of the results inadmissible. Hiring qualified survey experts like Keegan & Donato Consulting will help protect your survey from attack.
In Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 140 F.Supp.2d 241 – Dist. Court, ED. 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 decided in favor of the defendant.
In Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Monster Energy Company – Dist. Court, SD Florida (2021), the court ruled against plaintiff Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (VPX) claim of trade dress infringement against the defendant. “VPX has not shown any likelihood of confusion between Bang and Reign because, among other things… (2) VPX has failed to put forth direct evidence of actual confusion, and (3) VPX’s indirect evidence of confusion, in the form of a survey, is almost comically flawed.”
In Elliott v. Google, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 1156 – Dist. Court, D. Arizona (2014), the plaintiff’s surveys were considered inadmissible because the court decided they were unscientific and poorly constructed. The survey expert was also rejected as unqualified “to design a survey or interpret survey results” [see 45 F.Supp.3d 1167-1170].
As you look for trademark survey companies to assist in your Providence, RI litigation, consider Keegan & Donato Consulting. Contact us at (914) 967-9421 to explore the many services we offer.