If you are a trademark attorney whose litigation in Connecticut calls for a survey expert, take advantage of support from Keegan & Donato Consulting. We can deliver persuasive survey evidence that will stand up to judicial scrutiny.
The principals of Keegan & Donato Consulting – Mark Keegan and Tony Donato – have over 30 years of combined expertise in designing, executing and critiquing consumer research studies in the context of litigation, and offer an unusual mix of strategic and analytical skills.
The firm has designed hundreds of studies across a wide range of industries to test a wide variety of Lanham Act claims, including likelihood of confusion, strength of mark, acquired distinctiveness, false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, and a wide range of other issues, including damages analysis, forensic economic analysis, and related areas.
Surveys conducted by Keegan & Donato Consulting have been admitted into evidence in federal and state courts, at arbitration, and to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the NAD, and other specialty venues, in matters involving a broad range of products and services. We have also testified extensively at deposition and at trial.
Keegan & Donato Consulting has developed surveys for firms that manage some of the largest trademark portfolios in the world, such as Fox Rothschild LLP in New Jersey and Philadelphia, Riemer & Braunstein LLP in Boston, Girard Gibbs LLP in San Francisco, SmithAmundsen LLC in Chicago, and Hogan Lovells in Washington, DC.
How a Survey Expert Can Help Your Case
Good survey evidence can be powerful, but consumer surveys are not accepted without challenge. Courts demand accurate, real-world data, and poor designs and methodological flaws can result in partial or full exclusion of survey evidence from a case.
In Parks, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2015 WL 4545408, No. 5:15–cv–00946 (E.D. PA. May 10, 2016), for example, 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, on the other hand, introduced a consumer survey that showed little evidence of consumer confusion between its Park’s Finest sausages and Parks brand sausages. Tyson Foods prevailed.
In Elliott v. Google, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 1156 – Dist. Court, D. Arizona (2014), the plaintiff’s surveys were deemed inadmissible because the Court determined them to be unscientific and poorly constructed. The survey expert was also rejected as unqualified “to design a survey or to interpret survey results.”
A trademark survey expert like Keegan & Donato Consulting can help you develop a powerful strategy for your Connecticut litigation. Contact us at (914) 967-9421 to learn more about our affordable services.