Judge Arthur Spatt
Plaintiff, from California, is New York defendant Gratton’s brother. Gratton ceased using “Van Praagh” as her last name in 1970. Plaintiff asserted that the “James Van Praagh Trademark” for his spiritual medium services, books, web site, shows and seminars built “valuable good will in his name.” In 2010 Gratton began providing spiritual medium services in New York under the “Van Praagh” name, using the “Lynn Van Praagh” and “Lynn Van Praagh-Gratton” marks on web sites and social media. On October 30, 2012, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued plaintiff two registration numbers for the James Van Praagh Trademark. Despite dismissing his claim of deceptive practices violating General Business Law §349, district court denied dismissal of plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims of trademark infringement and dilution, and false designation of origin. “Van Praagh” is distinctive and qualifies as a valid mark. Further, plaintiff sufficiently alleged defendant’s use of “Van Praagh” was likely to cause confusion. From information on Gratton’s web site, the court found it possible that her use of “Van Praagh” with her spiritual medium services may confuse a consumer into thinking that her services were connected to or endorsed by plaintiff.
