Print

Gunster attorneys Michael W. Marcil and Jack Aiello recently argued before a federal appeals court on behalf of Alarm Protection Technology in a trademark infringement appeal brought by ADT. On March 24, the three-judge appellate panel found in favor of APT, now known as Alder.

According to today’s article in the Daily Business Review, Boca Raton-based ADT originally brought suit against Alder on claims of trademark infringement and, for its February 2015 trial, requested a jury instruction on the “intial interest confusion” doctrine, meaning consumers were initially confused as to which company was which.

Although the doctrine wasn’t included in jury instructions, a verdict form asked whether there was confusion regarding Alder’s approach with potential customers, the article states.

The jury reject ADT’s claims for $27 million in damages, and ADT subsequently appealed.

On March 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that the jury instructions were appropriate, and rejected ADT’s arguments on two other instructions as well, writes Celia Ampel in DBR.

In the article, Gunster attorney Marcil indicates ADT’s lawsuit against Alder illustrates the larger company’s pattern of suing its marketplace competitors.

Read the article: Upstart security company beats ADT on trademark appeal (Daily Business Review, 4/5/16) – note: subscription required

Related:


Find a Professional

by Name


by Practice/Office