United States Second Circuit

Plaintiff failed to put forward sufficient evidence that defendants' actions constituted "commercial advertising or promotion" under the Lanham Act. Exclusion of plaintiff's expert testimony regarding the value of lost business was not an abuse of discretion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/23/2002
• Published 12/23/2002

Judges

• JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Chief Judge., Before WALKER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and F.I. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Martin E. Karlinsky,Rosenman & Colin LLP (George F. Meierhofer and Gilly Nadel, on the brief), New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Steven Skulnik, Pavia & Harcourt (Richard L. Mattiaccio, Victor Genecin, and Paul B. Lyons, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.