FNU's Miami Attorneys Could Land More Than $1 Million in Fees Winning Trademark Fight With FIU
Peretz, Chesal & Herrmann may be in line for at least $1 million in legal fees for beating Miami's public university.
June 26, 2018 at 02:03 PM
4 minute read
Peretz Chesal & Herrmann's successful defense of the private Florida National University against crosstown giant Florida International University's trademark infringement suit has put him in line for more than $1 million in attorney fees.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams issued an order Friday that the parties attempt to agree on an amount. As FNU's legal fees exceeded $1 million, that's likely to be the base figure.
Miami attorney Steven Peretz said his firm calculated its tab by applying a base market rate for the attorneys multiplied by the number of hours spent on the matter.
Peretz has represented Hialeah's for-profit Florida National University since 2013 when FIU, Miami's public university, sued over the similarity in names. The 55,000-student FIU claimed FNU's name caused unwarranted confusion in the marketplace and led to losses in admissions and tuition for FIU.
In response, FNU maintained, “The plaintiff has no enforceable rights against the defendant arising from defendant's use of 'university' and 'Florida' to accurately identify itself as a university located in Florida.”
Williams ruled against FIU in 2015, deciding college applicants weren't likely to confuse the two and finding no “compelling or persuasive evidence of intent to piggyback on FIU's name or goodwill.”
FIU appealed, which piled onto the Peretz Chesal fees after it won.
Fee awards like this one are rarely granted in trademark cases since the law restricts them to exceptional cases. To be labeled exceptional, the court must find that the lawsuit lacked merit or litigation was unreasonably pursued.
In this case, FIU was tripped up by its own testimony.
“When we took the deposition of the senior administrators at FIU, the marketing counsultant said she had not heard of Florida National before this lawsuit,” Peretz said.
Adding insult to injury, an outside marketing consultant who'd worked for FIU for four years stated FNU was “not on my radar screen at all.”
“It should have been made known to FIU by the decision-makers, as they interviewed their own witnesses ahead of time, that they didn't have any basis for saying there was confusion,” Peretz said.
Rafael Paz, associate general counsel at Florida International University, conceded in a deposition that he was unaware of “any instance where somebody applied to FIU thinking that FIU was associated with FNU.”
“At that point, this became a man-bites-dog case because although every side has a loser, in this case the losing side lost because their own witnesses gave bad testimony,” Peretz said.
Since much of the case rested on how much revenue was generated by each school, FIU's argument fell apart without proof that FNU gained a dollar in tuition or donations intended by students for FIU.
“After we got those admissions, there was no reason to pursue a claim for damages, but FIU pursued a claim for damages until the bitter end,” Peretz said.
Williams ordered the parties to meet and confer to see if the fees can be hashed out cordially.
A mediation session will follow if they disagree. Two previous attempts at mediation have been unsuccessful.
“Maybe the third time is the charm,” Peretz said. “We're hopeful that we can reach an agreement on the amount of fees and put this matter to rest.”
When reached for comment, FIU attorney David K. Friedland of Friedland Vining stated he did not wish to discuss the case while it's still pending.
Peretz expects to propose a fee amount for FIU within 30 days.
At the district court level, the Peretz Chesal attorneys expended about 2,750 hours over a two-year period. At the appellate level, the attorneys added about 700 hours in six months. The principal attorneys involved were partners Steven Peretz and Michael Chesal and associate Moish Peltz.
The attorney's hourly rates changed over the course of the case.
Read the court order:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllIt's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
4 minute readNew Ruling Affects Fees for Lawyers Who Serve as Expert Witnesses
Greenberg Traurig Sees 6% Growth in Revenue Amid Nonequity Tier Expansion
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250