Invoice or legal notice from New York Law Journal, Aug

ing trust to a unitrust shall be effective as of are allowed in the share requested pur­ z the first day of the year commencing after the er, the decedent’s son, there was no appearance in opposition. However, it suant to Judiciary Law §474-a. The sum z O Company Properly Alleges That Its Marks Have election is made. Surrogate Roth appears that the decedent’s surviving spouse may be under a disability. If the of $10,493.49 is to be paid to the New York City Department of Social Services o g Become Associated With Its Diamond Products ESTATE OF EDITH PREISNER - After conference with the Court, this contest­ ed application to determine the velidity default of the surviving spouse was caused by the alleged disability, it would also render him ineligible to and shall be deducted from the share payable to the petitioner, as requested. The net distributable proceeds are to be CD

o Continued from page 23, column 6__________________ motion to dismiss the Lanham Act claim is therefore of the claim of Paul Foster, Esq., against serve as the fiduciary. Under the cir­ paid as requested: 42 percent to the spouse, 32 percent to Keelan Doudouy- “0 I denied.' the estate of Edith Preisner was settled cumstances, a guardian ad litem will c o Lanham Act Claim Dilution Under Common Law pursuant to a stipulation entered into in not be appointed for him in this pro­ ou and 26 percent to Kenny Doudouyou. o Plaintiff brings trademark claims under the Lanham Act open court. ceeding. However, one will be appoint­ The annuities approved by the guardian CT o Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated New York State Proceed accordingly. ed for him in any future proceeding if ad litem may be purchased. Any monies o' for unfair competition and false designation of origin. paid during the minority of the infant Section 1125 of the Act prohibits infringement of unregis­ General Business Law §360-1. (Amend. Compl. ^28.) To plead ESTATE OF THEOCLITOS DEMETRI- appropriate. Accordingly, the applica­ a successful cause of action under the New York dilution tion is granted and letters of adminis­ distributees shall be paid to the "0 O) Ca5 tered trademarks. 15 U.S.C.A. §1125(a) (2004). To prevail on law, a plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of a mark that is ADES, deceased — After conference with the Court, this contested applica­ tration shall issue to the petitioner guardian of their property, jointly with o a claim of trademark infringement under this section, a the Guardian Clerk of this court, subject tn plaintiff must show that it owns a trademark that (1) is enti­ distinctive or has acquired distinctiveness through second­ tion to determine the validity of the upon his filing a surety bond in the CD oo tled to protection, and (2) the defendant’s unauthorized use ary meaning, and (2) a likelihood of dilution through blur­ claim of Mira Guberinic against the penal sum of $125,000.00. to the further order of this court. The ring’ or tarnishment.’ See New York Stock Exchange, Inc., estate of Theoclitos Demetriades was Submit decree. restrictions Imposed upon the petition­ of similar marks in commerce is likely to cause confusion. er and his counsel shall remain in full 0 See Virgin Enterprises LTD v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141, 146 (2d 293 F.3d at 557-558. Six factors are often used to determine settled pursuant to a stipulation filed ESTATE OF JASON ANGEL PEREZ, O the likelihood of blurring: (I) similarity of the marks, (2) sim­ with the court. force in effect with regard to any remain­ O Cir. 2003). The strength of the mark determines whether it is ilarity of the products covered, (3) sophistication of the con­ Proceed accordingly. deceased — In this application by the ing defendants and causes of action. c entitled to protection. The Second Circuit evaluates the administratrix, the decedent’s mother, strength of trademarks according to the test articulated in sumer, (4) predatory intent, (5) renown of the senior mark, ESTATE OF JOHN BARSOW, deceased to compromise claims arising from the Settle decree. 3 (6) renown of the junior mark. See Katz v, Modiri, 283 F. — Insufficient proof having been offered Accounting Department CD Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Inc. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d events leading to the decedent’s death, 3 4, 9 (2d Cir. 1976). Marks are classified as (1) generic, (2) Supp. 2d 883, 901 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Deere & Co. v. MTD to establish the identity of the distribu­ the court authorized the entry of an ORDERS SIGNED: ESTATE OF .lAMES descriptive, (3) suggestive, (4) arbitrary, or (5) fanciful. Id. Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir. 1994)). tees of John Barsow, the Public interim decree permitting the collection R. CARPENTER. Generic marks are not entitled to protection; however, Defendant moves to dismiss the common law dilution Administrator is directed to deposit the of the settlement proceeds and direct­ claim, asserting that Plaintiff's marks are not strong or dis­ net estate with the Commissioner of ing that they be held in escrow (Matter Miscellaneuos Department marks that are either inherently distinctive or have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning are protected. tinctive, as required by statute, and are instead generic and Finance of the City of New York for the of Perez, N.Y.L.J., December 15, 2003, p. DECREES SIGNED: ESTATES OF See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 112 S. Ct. 2753, descriptive. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Dels.’ Mot. to Dismiss at benefit of decedent’s unknown distribu­ 30, col. 2). The objections filed by the RADAMES LOPEZ; Amadou Baiio Diallo. 15-16.) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, however, alleges that tees subject to the further order of this decedent’s father have now been set­ 2757 (1992). To establish secondary meaning, “a manufactur­ Court. ORDERS SIGNED; ESTATES OF RUTH er must show that, in the minds of the public, the primary the marks have acquired distinctiveness due to the public’s tled pursuant to a written stipulation strong association of the mark with Plaintiff’s product Decree signed. WIMPFHEIMER; Victor Kwarkye. significance of a product feature or term Is to identify the filed with the court. source of the product rather than the product itself.” Bristol- (Amend. Compl. 121.) Furthermore, the Amended Complaint ESTATE OF MARIE JOYCE, deceased The decedent was involved in a motor Guardianship Department Myers Squibb Company V. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 973 F.2d 1033, alleges that Plaintiff’s reputation has suffered due to confu­ — Incident to her final accounting in the vehicle accident and died Intestate on sion between the two products. (Id. l‘|24-25,) Defendant APPUCATION FOR ORDER AUTHO­ 1041 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Inwood Laboratories v. Ives estate of Marie Joyce, the Public April 24, 2002. The decedent’s presump­ RIZING WITHDRAWAL OF INFANTS therefore has not established beyond doubt that Plaintiff can JS Laboratories, 456 U.S. 844, 851 (1982)). Judge Friendly out­ Administrator requests a determination tive distributees are his parents. The prove no set of facts to support its New York dilution claim FUNDS, ORDERS SIGNED: MATTER OF ! lined factors in Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp, that of the identity of decedent’s distribu­ New York State Department of Taxation for relief. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the New York State tees. RAMON EMILIO OVIEDO: Aura Elisa have been consistently used within the Second Circuit to and Finance has consented to the appli­ Oviedo: Carolyn Jaiceleth Oviedo; determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists. 287 F.2d General Business Law §360-1 claim is therefore denied. Based upon the proof submitted at a cation. Under the circumstances pre­ hearing before a court attorney-referee, Kelliann-Marie Johnson; Dennis 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961). The non-exclusive factors are (1) the Unfair Competition Under Common Law sented, including that no debts or Edwards Poller. Jr.; Christopher Troy the court finds that decedent was sur­ strength of the mark, (2) the degree of similarity between claims have been presented against the Hedrick: Zaini Arzu; Padamani D. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed unfair competi­ vived as her sole distributees by a sister the two marks, (3) the proximity of the products, (4) the and a niece (issue of a predeceased sis­ estate that are not being satisfied here­ Sukhram; Vincent Shawndell Chambers; tion under common law. The elements of an unfair competi­ likelihood the prior owner will bridge the gap, (5) actual ter). in, the request to allocate the entire pro­ Hector F. Gonzalez Sanchez; Ismael tion claim under New York law are the same as the Lanham confusion, (6) the defendant’s good faith in adopting the Accordingly, decedent’s net estate ceeds to the claim for wrongful death is Santiago. Act elements listed above, with an added bad faith require­ mark, (7) the quality of the defendant's product, and (8) the shall be distributed equally between Car­ approved. ment. See Genesee Brewing Company, Inc. v. Stroh Brewing APPLICATION FOR LETTERS OF sophistication of the buyers. Id.; see also New York Stock Company, Inc., 124 F.3d 137, 149-150 (2d. Cir. 1997), As previ­ olyn Cecelia Kent and Marianne Jean Counsel fees and disbursements are GUARDIANSHIP DECREE SIGNED, MAT­ Exchange, Inc. v. New York, New York Hotel, LLC, 293 F.3d Treglia. allowed in the sum requested. The net ously explained, proof of a likelihood of confusion requires TER OF TYESHA MONIQUE MEADOWS; 550, 557 (2d Cir. 2002). an analysis of the Polaroid factors, resolution of which Settle decree. distributable proceeds are to be paid Brayan Guzman; Helen Ann Donnelly; Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s phrases are generic and would constitute premature fact finding inappropriate upon according to the terms of the stipula­ Titianna Deshane Alexander; Keshawn ESTATE OF JACQUELINE CRESPI, descriptive and thus, even if they have acquired secondary a motion to dismiss. See Courtenay Communications Corp., tion. Will Alexander: Calvin James Walters, deceased — At the call of the calendar, meaning, they are not entitled to protection under the Lan­ this application to compel the executrix Decree signed. 334 F.3d at 213. Similarly, any determinations regarding Jr. ham Act. (Memo, of Law in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at Defendant’s potential bad faith, which would involve a factu­ of the estate of Jacqueline Crespi to ESTATE OF SOPHIE HUTNICK, LETTERS OF GUARDIANSHIP ISSUED, 6-14.) Defendant also asserts a fair use defense, claiming that al inquiry, would also be premature. See Castle Rock account was granted. Gisele Pincus i.5 deceased — In this application by an MATTER OF KESHAWN W. ALEXANDER; the wording is laudatory and therefore not entitled to protec­ Entertainment v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 955 F. Supp. directed to file an account of her pro" alleged creditor for the issuance of let­ Titianna D. Alexander; Brayan Guzman; tion, Id- The classification of a mark, however, is based on 260, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Plaintiff has made allegations suffi­ ceedlngs, together with a petition for (ts ters of administration to the Public Tyesha M. Meadows. how the purchasing public for the particular good perceives cient to support a cause of action against Defendant for judicial settlement, within 45 days after Administrator, there was no appear­ the mark. Courtenay Communications Corp. v. Hall, 334 F.3d unfair competition. Additionally, the Amended Complaint service of a copy of the order to be APPLICATION FOR MISCELLANEOUS at 215. This initial classification, which is a requisite determi­ ance in opposition and the Public asserts that Defendant has “willfully, intentionally, and know­ entered herein with notice of entry. Administrator consented on the record ORDERS SIGNED, MATTER OF ZHAMID nation for a trademark infringement claim, is a factual deter­ ingly used a designation confusingly similar” to Plaintiff’s This decision constitutes the order of ARZU; Jamel R. Rock-Bennett; pamela mination. Id. As the Second Circuit recently explained; in open court. Accordingly, a decree marks. (Amend. Compl. ^37.) The Court therefore cannot the court. Graddic; Jennifer Fosse. may be settled granting letters of It is usually true that the classification of a mark is a fac­ conclude that there is no set of facts which would support ORDERS SIGNED: PRAN NATH SHAR­ administration to the Public tual question, and that the question turns on how the the plaintiff’s common law unfair competition claim for MA; Jacqueline Crespi; Marie Joyce; Administrator. purchasing public views the mark. The pleadings and relief. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the com­ John Barsow. documents necessarily relied upon by plaintiff’s com­ mon law unfair competition claim is denied. ESTATE OF RUTH KATZ, ALSO GSVIL COURT plaint, which were all that the district court could right­ For the foregoing reasons. Defendant’s motion to dismiss KNOWN AS RUTH A. KATZ, ALSO fully consider In deciding the motion to dismiss for pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce­ known as RUTH H. KATZ, deceased — Judge Rodriguez In this application for the issuance of failure to state a claim, are insufficient for determining the critical fact of how the public views [a] mark. dure is denied in its entirety. So Ordered. BRONX letters of administration to the petition­ er, the decedent’s son, there was no EBES LONCAREVIC v. Zhang; GENESONIV. Waldorf Carting Corp. & Id. (internal citations omitted). Defendant’s classification argument is thus premature. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that the marks are (1) The Defendant has not challenged the contributory infringement COUNTY appearance in opposition. However, it appears that the decedent's surviving Walston; WILLIAMS v. Scott-Jones—See memorandum on file. Judge Sherman claim asserted by Plaintiff in Count One of the Complaint. As the Lan­ spouse may be under a disability. If the entitled to protection as they have become associated with default of the surviving spouse was HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY v, HOP’S diamond products. (Amend. Compl. ^21.) Plaintiff fur­ ham Act elements are critical to a finding of contributory infringement, the contributory negligence claim is also not ripe for dismissal accord­ caused by the alleged disability, it Lopez; LINTON v. Macias; REYES v, ther alleges that Defendant’s use of a similar mark without ing to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. MVAIC; QUILES V. Venditti; RODRIGUEZ permission is likely to cause confusion among the public. (2) Blurring occurs when the defendant uses a mark that is the SUPREME COURT would also render him ineligible to serve as the fiduciary. Under the cir­ V, Marte; FLEET NATIONAL BANK v, 0d. .1^22,25.) Plaintiff has pleaded that its phrases have same or similar to the plaintiff’s mark to identify its goods, causing a McKay Medical Transportation, Inc.; potential loss of distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark to the plaintiff's Justice Stanley Green cumstances, a guardian ad litem will acquired distinctiveness through continuous and exclusive CITICORP V. Morales; JENKINS v. product. See New York Stock Exchange, fnc. v. New York, New York not be appointed for him in this pro­ uses since 1997 and that Defendant’s phrase is likely to Hotel, LLC, 293 F.3d 550, 558 (2d Cir. 2002). Grant v. Vita (13206/98)—Pd - Trotman—See memorandum on file, ceeding. However, one will be appoint­ cause confusion. (Id. ^^21-22,25-26.) Plaintiff has therefore (3) Tarnishment occurs when the defendant uses tlie mark in a way Referred To Another Judge pleaded facts supporting all elements of the Lanham Act ed for him in any future proceeding if that dilutes the quality or prestige associated with the plaintiff’s mark Justice Sallie Manzanet cause of action asserted in the Amended Complaint. because of confusion between the two marks. See New York Stock appropriate. Accordingly, the applica­ LOOKING FOR TEMPORARY Accordingly, it does not appear beyond doubt that Plaintiff Exchange, fnc. v. New York, New York Hotel, LLC, 293 F.3d 550, 558 (2d Arciniega v. Rbg Mgt. Corp. tion is granted and letters of adminis­ HELP OR WORK? can prove no set of facts to support his claim for relief. The Cir. 2002). S (17020/01)—Withdrawn tration shall issue to the petitioner SEE THE CLASSIFiES PAGES.

d

1