Hiring a trademark survey expert, such as Keegan & Donato Consulting, for your Seattle litigation will have a significant impact on whether the court deems your survey results admissible.

Keegan & Donato Consulting is a specialty research consultancy and one of the most experienced companies in the field of trademark litigation.

With more than 25 years of combined experience, proven survey methodologies, and deep operational insight, principals Mark Keegan and Tony Donato provide expert research, expert reports, and testimony on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants in support of trademark infringement litigation.

We are members in the International Trademark Association (INTA), the American Marketing Association (AMA), the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), and ESOMAR, the leading global association for market, social and opinion researchers,

Our specialties include:

• Lanham Act Analysis & Surveys
• Likelihood of Confusion Analysis & Surveys
• Strength of Mark Analysis & Surveys
• Secondary Meaning Analysis & Surveys
• Trade Dress Analysis & Surveys
• Consumer Perception Analysis & Surveys
• Consumer Understanding Studies
• Marketing, damages, and forensic economic analyses
• Critique of opposing experts’ studies and reports
• Advice on deposition and trial questioning of opposing experts
• Expert Witness Testimony

Our consumer surveys typically cost between $30,000 and $80,000 to complete, and $55,000 is the average cost. We work on a fixed rate or hourly basis depending on your needs and will work with you to design a survey that is both reliable and within your budget. We will always provide you with an estimate of project costs prior to engagement.

Could a Consumer Survey Help Your Case?

Good survey evidence can be powerful, but consumer surveys are generally not accepted without a challenge. Courts require accurate, real-world data. Poor designs and methodological flaws often result in partial or full exclusion of survey evidence from a case.

In Elliott v. Google, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 1156 – Dist. Court, D. Arizona (2014), for example. 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 not qualified “to design a survey or to interpret survey results.”

In Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc., 726 F.3d 1142, 1144-50 (10th Cir. 2013), there is a lengthy discussion wherein the Court concludes that the defendant’s survey evidence “had too many methodological flaws to be of any probative value.”

Thinking you may not need a survey? Courts have also drawn negative inferences from the absence of survey evidence. In Pharmacia Corp. v. Alcon Labs, Inc., 201 F.Supp. 2d 335, 373 (D.N.J. 2002), for example, the court noted that, “Pharmacia is not legally required to conduct a confusion survey. But … such a failure, particularly when the trademark owner is financially able, justifies an inference that the plaintiff believes the results of the survey will be unfavorable.”

If you are in the midst of IP litigation in Seattle, or elsewhere in the U.S., discover how a trademark survey expert can help you prove or disprove likelihood of confusion or trademark infringement. Get in touch with Keegan & Donato Consulting at (914) 967-9421 today.