Judge Rules No Infringement in Battle Over Law Firm Names
Two personal injury firms in Houston were in a legal fight over the use of "P&M Law."
February 12, 2018 at 04:01 PM
3 minute read
Ashish Mahendru of Mahendru PC in Houston, who represented Paranjpe & Mahadass in the dispute.
With hard-to-pronounce partner surnames like Paranjpe and Mahadass at one Houston firm and Mostaghimi and Papapavlou at another, it's not surprising that the two personal injury firms would use the initials P and M in their firm names.
But the use of the similar-sounding names prompted the filing of a trademark dispute last year—one that hs now resulted in a summary judgment ruling by a Houston judge finding that Paranjpe & Mahadass did not commit any trademark infringement against PM Law Firm.
In the Feb. 3 order, 152nd District Judge Robert Schaffer of Harris County found that PM Law firm does not have a valid common law trademark for the name PM Law.
For the last several years, Paranjpe & Mahadass has used the domain name www.pandmllp.com, and P&M or PM for marketing, and P&M Law on its website. The domain name of the other firm, PM Law Firm, is www.pmtxlaw.com.
Plaintiffs lawyer Ashish Mahendru, a name partner at Houston's Mahendru, said the summary judgment brings an end to the litigation. It is unclear whether PM Law Firm will appeal.
Mahendru said Schaffer's ruling sets a precedent.
“It's a case of first impression because it is rare to find law firms trying to box out other law firms using names,” he said. “I think the disciplinary rules prohibit us from using trade names for marketing ourselves, so we are really limited to our own names.”
The partners at defendant PM Law Firm are Porya Mostaghimi and John Papapavlou. The partners at Paranjpe and Mahadass are Tej Paranjpe and Raj Mahadass.
The dispute began in May 2017, when a lawyer for PM Law Firm sent Paranjpe & Mahadass a demand letter, alleging a violation of the firm's trademark, and asking the firm to cease all use of P&M Law and the domain name. In response, Paranjpe & Mahadass filed Paranjpe & Mahadass v. PM Law Firm, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not infringed on any common law trademark of the defendant, that the defendant's mark is not protectable, and that any marks the defendant alleges are common law trademarks that have been canceled.
In an answer, PM Law Firm sought a take-nothing judgment and damages for trademark infringement.
David Mestemaker, a partner at Mestemaker & Straub in Houston who represented defendant PM Law firm, could not immediately be reached for comment.
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
Seyfarth Launches Energy Transactions Practice in Houston With Polsinelli Team
3 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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
