Ross Cellino Jr., left, and Stephen Barnes.Barnes v. Cellino: NY Personal Injury Lawyer Sues Partner's Wife, Daughter Over Trademark Rights
Stephen Barnes contends the family of his law firm partner is violating trademark laws in an effort to try to steal the business he worked hard to build.
June 10, 2019 at 01:18 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Stephen Barnes, one half of the dispute-racked New York personal injury powerhouse Cellino & Barnes, has sued a law firm run by the wife and daughters of his partner, Ross Cellino.
Claiming he was suing on behalf of his firm, Barnes accuses Cellino & Cellino of infringing on his law firm's trademarks, including its name and its phone number slogan “Don't Wait, Call 8!”
The new suit comes amid an effort by Cellino to dissolve Cellino & Barnes over disagreements with his partner Barnes, who insists that the business is robust, profitable and shouldn't be shut down.
In an April article in the Buffalo News, Jeanna Cellino, one of Ross Cellino's daughters and a founder of Cellino & Cellino, said her new firm would focus on personal injury law but said her father isn't involved in the new firm “in any way.” She said she was working with her mother Anna Marie and her sister Annmarie, and that they plan to hire one more lawyer.
Paul Cambria, a lawyer for Barnes, told The Buffalo News that there would be no issues in the dissolution dispute if Ross Cellino was truly not involved with the new firm.
But Barnes said in his new suit that website registration records and Ross Cellino's previous communications with attorneys at Cellino & Barnes strongly suggest Ross Cellino is involved in the new firm, and he wants the Cellino women to stop using the firm name.
“It is inevitable that actual confusion will arise if C&C is allowed to proceed with performing business under, marketing, and advertising its confusingly similar name,” the suit said.
As Barnes tells it, it has been clear since shortly after Ross Cellino filed for dissolution of their firm in 2017 that he had plans to start a similar business. Cellino pitched Cellino & Barnes' attorneys, in writing, on the prospect of joining a firm he referred to as “Cellino & ???” and even shot commercials for the new business in hopes of replicating the media omnipresence of the Cellino & Barnes brand in New York, Barnes' new suit alleges.
Between the new firm name and its phone number—716-888-2020, said by Barnes to be a mash-up of Cellino & Barnes' trademarked 800-888-8888 and its less catchy number, 716-854-2020—it's clear that Cellino & Cellino has set out to poach Cellino & Barnes' business in violation of the federal Lanham Act, Barnes alleges.
The complaint also said that the website cellinoandcellino.com was registered “by an unknown party” just a week before Ross Cellino sought to dissolve his firm. It was modified just two weeks before Cellino & Cellino filed incorporation papers, the suit contends.
The suit seeks a temporary restraining order, an injunction and damages.
Cellino & Cellino could not immediately be reached for comment.
Terry Connors, a partner at Connors LLP who represents Ross Cellino, said Barnes' suit was more proof that Cellino & Barnes should be dissolved. Cellino's dissolution case is set to go to trial in August, although an appeal from a summary judgment decision is pending.
“This lawsuit is the latest example of conclusive proof of the dissension and deadlock that requires dissolution of Cellino & Barnes,” Connors said in a statement. “Ross's co-owner has filed an unauthorized lawsuit on behalf of the firm—likely using firm funds—to prevent Ross's wife and daughters from starting their own law firm.”
Asked in an email if the suit was filed using firm funds, Barnes' lawyer, Gregory Photiadis of Duke, Holzman, Photiadis & Gresens, said no.
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 All
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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
