ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION   

Anderson Kill’s attorneys have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of well-known civil cases, including class actions seeking treble damages and injunctive relief under federal and state antitrust laws. Anderson Kill’s depth and experience in defending large scale private antitrust class actions includes its extensive experience with respect to class certification issues, and its involvement in multidistrict litigation. Typical of Anderson Kill’s experience in this area is its successful representation of a major telecommunications carrier in litigations alleging tying and conspiracies to deter competition. See, e.g., 2003-2 Trade Cases, para 74, 133 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); 385 F.Supp.2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); 238 F.R.D. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). In defending these litigations, Anderson Kill regularly works with well-known established economists to provide expertise as to critical issues such as relevant market, harm to competition and damages.

The firm also has extensive experience in every phase of criminal antitrust prosecution including representation of companies and individuals in grand jury investigations, indictments and trial. Our experience is exemplified by our participation on behalf of Korean defendants in the Landmark ADM private treble damage, civil and criminal conspiracy litigations. See In Re Amino Lysine Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1083, C.A. No. 95 C 7679 (N.D. Ill.); U.S. v. Ajinomoto Co., Criminal No. 96-CR-00520 (N.D. Ill.). We are also experienced in responding to search warrants and dawn raids and have successfully utilized the Antitrust Division’s leniency/amnesty program resulting in the avoidance of prosecution of our clients.

Since the antitrust laws play an important role in every aspect of a firm’s domestic or international business, our antitrust group works closely with clients to maximize their competitiveness in the real world without running afoul of the antitrust laws. Our ability to counsel clients effectively is enhanced by our familiarity with current Governmental practices and policies and decisions issued by state and federal courts. Our firm’s expertise enables it to counsel clients on a wide range of commercial matters potentially raising antitrust concerns, including competitor relations, supplier, customer or dealer relationships and terminations, refusals to deal, tying arrangements, reciprocity, marketing plans or policies, acquisitions and mergers, joint ventures, franchising, research and development, trade associations, licensing and regulatory compliance, including Hart-Scott-Rodino filings. The use of trained paralegals and sophisticated data and document maintenance and retrieval programs enables the firm to provide its antitrust compliance and litigation services in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Our mission is to provide clients with advice to enable them to avoid exposure to liability under the antitrust laws and, if necessary, to provide the required litigation expertise as effectively and efficiently as possible.

For more information, please contact:

Lawrence Kill, (212) 278-1722 or lkill@andersonkill.com 


UNFAIR COMPETITION

Anderson Kill has considerable expertise in litigating cases involving unfair or fraudulent business practices. The definition of “unfair competition” is flexible and always evolving, as are Anderson Kill’s services. Our goal is to protect our clients’ business interests through both the prosecution and defense of unfair competition and intellectual property-related lawsuits. In addition to litigation, Anderson Kill routinely advises clients regarding compliance with state and federal unfair competition laws. Unfair competition cases handled by Anderson Kill run the gamut of claims, and include:
 

Trade name and trade dress infringement

Consumer protection

False design of origin

Internet disputes

False representations and false advertising

Misappropriation of business assets

Tortious interference with contract and prospective business relations

Dilution

Trade secret theft

Breaches of restrictive covenants

Domain name cyber squatting

The firm uses trained staff and sophisticated programs that enable us to provide cost-effective and efficient services.
 
Common Law Unfair Competition and Lanham Act Section 43(a)
Anderson Kill has substantial experience with all aspects of statutory and common law unfair competition litigation, including false advertising. The firm has provided considerable pre-litigation preventative and enforcement advice and has engaged in a multitude of litigations with respect to both common law unfair competition and Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Anderson Kill has represented clients around the world and has been successful in obtaining both injunctive and monetary relief.

 
State Statutory Consumer Protection, False Advertising and Related Matters
Anderson Kill has a national litigation practice handling claims brought under state consumer protection and false advertising laws including cases involving advertising agencies and comparative advertising between competitors. The firm’s work in this regard has resulted in numerous favorable outcomes for its clients. In addition, Anderson Kill has an extensive library of relevant material regarding such claims.
 
Trade Dress and Trade Secret Litigation
Anderson Kill has litigated numerous disputes between competitors and between former business associates where the right to use particular trade dress, trade secrets and trademarks has been in dispute. Such issues often arise within or are the basis for false advertising and other unfair competition claims. In one matter, the firm successfully represented a defendant in federal court alleged to have wrongfully taken a trademark, trade dress and business plan and to have used them to unfairly compete with a competitor. Anderson Kill obtained a complete dismissal of the allegations prior to discovery. The firm also regularly handles claims involving breaches of restrictive covenants and tortious interference with contracts.
 
Internet Disputes and Domain Names
Many trademark and unfair competition claims involve the use, or misuse, of domain names. The Internet has created a global forum in which infringement of intellectual property is prevalent. Anderson Kill actively polices and protects its clients' rights domestically and internationally. The firm has experience in handling all aspects of domain name registration, transfer, dispute resolution and litigation. Anderson Kill attorneys have expertise with arbitrations under the rules and guidelines set forth by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Network Solutions, Inc. and various other registrars. Similarly, the firm has obtained favorable resolutions of many disputes involving the use of trademarks and trade dress on Web sites. Anderson Kill has been successful in litigating under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and in using trademark infringement and dilution provisions of the Lanham Act to obtain the transfer of infringing domain names. The firm has had success in representing trademark owners and rapidly obtaining federal injunctions restraining the use of its clients’ trademarks in domain names and on Web sites. The firm also has had success in employing in rem proceedings against domain names held by foreign entities.
 
Appellate Practice
Anderson Kill’s attorneys have appeared before a variety of courts of appeals in connection with unfair competition and intellectual property matters. For example, the firm recently obtained an important decision in representing a trademark owner before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Savin Corp. v. The Savin Group, 391 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2004). The case involved the defendant’s use in its domain name and on its Web site of the plaintiff’s trademark, and allegations that such use diluted the plaintiff’s mark. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff and held that additional proof, beyond the fact that the two marks in dispute were identical, was not required to prove “actual dilution.” The Second Circuit’s decision was the first federal court of appeals decision to define the scope of evidence required to demonstrate “actual dilution” in the case of identical marks. The firm also been successful at resolving several of these disputes without resorting to litigation.

 
Proceedings Before the International Trade Commission
Anderson Kill has litigated disputes on behalf of clients under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which enables United States industries to obtain relief from "unfair acts" in importation. These "unfair acts" often involve patent, trademark and copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, antitrust violations and unfair competition claims.
 
Valuation of Intellectual Property
Anderson Kill has provided clients with advice on the relative value of intellectual property, particularly in the context of license negotiations and acquisition of patents and patent applications. Such advice usually involves a study and evaluation of the pertinent prior art, competitive products, and market research data in order to provide the client with an integrated picture of the technical and market value of the patent or patent application.