Practices

Education

Bar Admissions

Clerkships

Court Admissions

Memberships

Other Distinctions

Expand All >>

Lawrence Weinstein

Lawrence I Weinstein
Partner

False Advertising & Trademark
Copyright

t: 212.969.3240

f: 212.969.2900

Biography

Press Room

Larry Weinstein is a Partner in Proskauer's Litigation Department and co-head of the firm’s renowned False Advertising & Trademark Group. He is both a distinguished trial lawyer and counselor. His practice covers a broad spectrum of intellectual property law, including false advertising (Lanham Act, consumer class actions, NAD, NARB, ERSP, FTC), trademark, trade secret and copyright matters, as well as sports, art and other complex commercial cases.

Larry’s clients include owners and advertisers of the world’s most well-recognized brands, a global sports federation, media companies, an environmental organization, hospitals and art collectors. He is esteemed by his clients for vigorous advocacy and for achieving consistently successful outcomes whether at trial or by averting trial via early stage dismissal, mediation or settlement.

His reputation as a preeminent litigator and expert in advertising and trademark law is recognized by all the national rating services. Chambers USA, US Legal 500 and US News & World Report each give Proskauer’s advertising litigation practice a Tier 1 rating. US Legal 500 identifies Larry as a “driving force” of Proskauer’s “distinguished” practice, and calls him “a hell of a litigator,” “an outstanding attorney” who is “worthy of trust,” “represents his clients zealously,” and “unquestionably a subject matter expert” in advertising and trademark law. Chambers USA calls him “a brilliant litigator,” “tough, determined and terrifically smart,” and “supremely effective in front of judges.” Institutional Investor Magazine’s Benchmark Litigation survey recently named him as one of New York State’s “litigation stars.”

Larry frequently speaks at national conferences and in webinars about Lanham Act litigation and consumer class actions. He has written numerous articles in the field of intellectual property law, and he is currently a member of Law360’s Intellectual Property Law Editorial Board.

Representative Matters:

False Advertising Litigation:

Church & Dwight Co, Inc. v. The Clorox Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Counsel to Church & Dwight in Lanham Act false advertising litigation challenging claims in Clorox’s ads for cat litter product. Case resulted in Clorox’s agreement to permanently withdraw the challenged ads
Gordon, et al. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32777 (N.D. Cal. 2010). As defense counsel, won motion to dismiss consumer class action challenging Church & Dwight’s labeling of FDA-regulated Class II medical device
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH (D.N.J. 2010). Counsel to Church & Dwight in Lanham Act false advertising declaratory judgment litigation concerning advertising for FDA-regulated home pregnancy test kits (Pending)
Dyson Inc. v. Bissell Homecare Inc. (N.D. Illinois 2011). Counsel to Dyson, plaintiff in Lanham Act false advertising litigation challenging vacuum cleaner advertising (Pending)
Dyson Inc. v. Garry Vacuums, et al. (C.D. Cal. 2010). Counsel to Dyson, plaintiff in Lanham Act false advertising litigation challenging vacuum cleaner advertising (Pending)
Dyson Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC (D. Mass. 2009). Counsel to Dyson, plaintiff in Lanham Act false advertising litigation challenging vacuum cleaner advertising. Favorable settlement.
Gifford, et al. v. U.S. Green Building Council, et al. (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Counsel to USGBC, defendant in purported class action deceptive advertising and antitrust litigation challenging LEED environmental rating system for commercial and residential buildings (Pending)
ACE American Ins. Co. v. Wachovia Ins. Agency Inc. and Scottsdale Ins. Co., 306 Fed. Appx 727 (3d Cir. 2009). Counsel to Scottsdale Ins., defendant in Lanham Act false advertising, trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract litigation. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction denied by N.J. district court. Decision affirmed by Third Circuit.
Merix Pharmaceutical Corp. V. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P., et al. (N.D. IIlinois 2008) and GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P., et al., v. Merix Pharmaceutical Corp. (D.N.J. 2008). Counsel to Merix in Lanham Act false advertising litigations between marketers of anti-herpetic drugs. Negotiated favorable global settlement.
In re Pepsico, Inc., Bottled Water Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Counsel to Pepsico in multi-district consumer class actions challenging Pepsico’s advertising of Aquafina bottled water. Court granted Pepsico’s motion to dismiss all class actions on ground that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.
United States Cellular Corp. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (N.D. IIlinois 2007). Counsel to T-Mobile USA, defendant in Lanham Act false advertising litigation. Negotiated favorable settlement.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232 (2d Cir 2001). Counsel to S.C. Johnson, plaintiff in Lanham Act false advertising litigation. Decision in favor of SC Johnson issued by district court and affirmed by U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 930 F. Supp. 753 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). Counsel to S.C. Johnson, plaintiff in Lanham Act false advertising litigation. Preliminary injunction against Clorox granted.

Trademark Litigation:

Hospital for Special Surgery v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas (N.D. Tex. 2009). Counsel to plaintiff Hospital for Special Surgery. Case favorably settled.
Dell Inc. v. Tiger Direct, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Counsel to defendant Tiger Direct. Case favorably settled.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Reedsdale Sales Corp., et al. (D.N.J. 2006). Counsel to S.C. Johnson in trademark counterfeiting litigation. Case favorable settled.

Copyright Infringement Litigation:

Onofrio v. Reznor, 2000 U.S. App LEXIS 2835 (9th Cir. 2000). Counsel to rock musician Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, defendant in copyright infringement case. Summary judgment in favor of client granted and affirmed by U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit.
A&M Records, Inc. et al. v. Napster Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Represented plaintiff Recording Industry Association of America in the famous copyright infringement litigation against Napster. Preliminary injunction granted against Napster.
Roth v. Pritikin, 710 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1983). Defense counsel in landmark copyright infringement case. Jury trial verdict in favor of client, author Nathan Pritikin, affirmed by Second Circuit.

Trade Secret Litigation:

SG Cowen Securities Corp. v. Messih, 224 F.3d 79 (2d Cir 2000). Defense counsel in trade secret misappropriation and non-compete litigation. Preliminary injunction against client denied. Denial affirmed on appeal by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Monovis, Inc. v. Aquino, 905 F. Supp. 1205 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). Plaintiff’s counsel in trade secret misappropriation case. After lengthy trial, verdict entered in favor of client.
Norton Co. v. Gordon Hickory, et al. (Mass. Superior Ct. 1991). Defense counsel in trade secret misappropriation case. Complete defense jury verdict in favor of client.

Commercial Litigation:

Castillo v. Tyson, 268 A.D. 2d 336 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Counsel to boxer Mike Tyson, in class action litigation arising from Tyson-Holyfield “ear biting” fight. Plaintiffs’ suit dismissed on motion. Dismissal affirmed by Appellate Division, First Department.
Orent v. Hungry Man, Inc. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009). Defense counsel in shareholder dissolution proceeding. Negotiated settlement favorable to client.

© 2012 Proskauer Rose LLP. All Rights Reserved.