CALL US FOR CONSULTATION 973-921-0080 973-921-0080


Ad Magic Inc v. Advertising Magic Inc.

The Ingber Law firm secures a finding for the defendant in a trademark infringement case.


Ad Magic is a New Jersey-based advertising company, and owner of the AD MAGIC website focused upon corporate and product identification. Ad Magic is the owner of a Federal Service Mark Registration for its AD MAGIC mark as used in connection with customized playing cards and poker chips which constitute ninety percent of its business.

Advertising Magic, Inc. is a California-based advertising company. Advertising Magic is the owner of a Federal Service Mark Registration for its mark ADVERTISING MAGIC as used in connection with advertising promotional services. Customized playing cards and poker chips constitute less than one percent of Advertising Magic’s business.

Notice of Intent to Sue:

Advertising Magic has conducted its services continuously since 1998, coextensive with Ad Magic’s operations with each party having no knowledge of the other until late 2005, when Advertising Magic first learned of the existence of Ad Magic’s website, In October, 2006 opposing counsel sent Ad Magic a “NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE” letter, demanded $450,000 in damages and that Ad Magic completely stop using the name Ad Magic and transfer its domain names. Ad Magic refused, but rather than wait to be sued in California, we filed suit in 2006 in New Jersey, seeking a declaration from the court that its use of the name Ad Magic does not interfere with the business or trademark rights of Advertising Magic, and also sought a finding of no likelihood of confusion, among other things. Advertising Magic countersued, asking for $450,000 in damages, that Ad Magic be forever enjoined from using its Ad Magic mark and requested that the Court transfer to it the domain name.

Burden of Proof and Verdict:

Advertising Magic had the burden of proof in this case. It had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that that a “likelihood of confusion,” exists between its ADVERTISING MAGIC service mark and my client’s AD MAGIC service mark. After a 4 day trial, the Jury found that Advertised Magic utterly failed to prove its case and a unanimous Verdict was entered in favor of Ad Magic and against Advertising Magic (see attached Verdict Sheet).

Insurance Note:

Once Advertising Magic countersued, I was able to compel Ad Magic’s insurance companies to fund the lawsuit by paying my client $138,000 for its anticipated legal expenses in defending the Counterclaims. Notwithstanding receipt of the insurance proceeds, I will now be filing a Motion with the Court seeking to have Advertising Magic reimburse Ad Magic for its legal fees.

You can see the judgment here.

Alumet Mfg. v. Alumet Supply

The Ingber Law firm secures a directed verdict and attorney’s fees for the defendant in a trademark infringement case.

We are pleased to report on the results of a Trial in June 2006, in which Judge Lifland of the Federal District Court of New Jersey, Ordered that Judgment as a Matter of Law/Directed Verdict be entered in favor of our client Alumet Supply of Orange, New Jersey against Alumet Mfg., of Marysville, Washington. Inc. This is (an exceptional result, meaning the case was dismissed at a very early stage in the trial, because the other party failed to prove its case).

Alumet Mfg. is a Washington State corporation with its only place of business in the United States in Marysville, Washington. Alumet Mfg. is a manufacturer who specializes in making component parts for the window and door fabrication industry. Alumet Mfg. owns a valid federal trademark registration of the mark Alumet, Registration No. 2,275,107 issued on September 7, 1999. The Trademark Registration covers window, door, and screen components, namely, air spacers, corner keys, muntin bars, glazing beads, window frames, patio door frames, screen door and window frames, cladding and moldings, all made of metal.

Alumet Supply is a Orange, New Jersey based wholesale distributor of aluminum sheet and coil operating predominately Uni ted States, with its only place of business Jersey. Alumet Supply has marketed its services under the name Alumet Supply, along with a distinctive logo, since September 1997.

Alumet Mfg. claimed that Alumet Supply had infringed or violated its Federal Trademark. Alumet Mfg. also claimed that its mark was famous and that Alumet’ s Supply was diluting its famous mark. Alumet Mfg. had the burden of proof in this case. It had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that purchasers of goods and services under Alurnet Supply’s mark and distinctive logo would probably assume those goods and services are associated with Alumet Mfg.

Alumet Supply denied these claims and asked this Court for a Declaration of Non-Infringement which was granted. We have now filed a Motion seeking to have Alumet Mfg. reimburse Alumet Supply and its insurance carrier (which by the way, reimbursed the bulk of our client’s fees pursuant to their Commercial General Liability [CGL] policy) for their legal fees.

Attached is a copy of the Court’s Order and the pertinent pages of our successful Motion in Court to have Judgment entered as a Matter of Law.