Michael Greenberg (lawyer)

Last updated
Michael Greenberg
Education Union College (BA)
Franklin Pierce Law Center (JD)
OccupationLawyer

Michael Greenberg is an American lawyer, regarded as a legal expert in intellectual property law and patent law. He is a partner of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Greenberg & Lieberman, with Stevan Lieberman, established in 1996. [1] As part of the firm, Greenberg has been involved in hundreds of UDRP or trademark infringement disputes and is a well-regarded and experienced litigator, with particular expertise in patent infringement cases.

Contents

Early life and background

Greenberg attended Union College in Schenectady, New York, where he graduated in 1990 with a Bachelor of Arts degree. [2] He has a background in the fields of biochemistry, economics, and sociology. He later earned his juris doctor from Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire in May 1993. [2] After graduating from Union College, Greenberg undertook his Judicial Clerkship, with the Honorable L. Leonard Ruben of the 6th Judicial Circuit of Maryland in 1992. After joining the Franklin Pierce Law Center, he gained experience in legal writing and research and was an issue editor for the IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology from 1992 to 1993. [2]

Greenberg is a member of the Maryland State Bar Association and American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Law Association and the Licensing Executives Society. He served as Vice Chairman of the Intellectual Property Section of Montgomery County from 1998 to 2000 and the Chairman of the Montgomery County Maryland Bar’s Intellectual Property and Technology Law Section from 2000 until 2003 and then from 2007 to the present. [2] He also works as a legal lecturer for the Montgomery County Bar Association and lectures annually at the American University Law School.

Career

Greenberg formed Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Greenberg & Lieberman, with Stevan Lieberman, also an expert in patent law and a pioneer in the technology-law areas of virtual worlds, domain names and software, in 1996. A national and an international firm, the company has a particular focus on computer Internet law and patent prosecution for small businesses. [3] As of 2010, the firm has served over 20,000 clients. [3]

As part of Greenberg & Lieberman, Greenberg has filed almost 300 trademarks and over 560 patent files as of September 2011. One of his earliest cases was a successful motion to dismiss copyright infringement suit based on lack of personal jurisdiction in Evan K. Aidman v. Mark S. Nelson in 1999. [4] In September 1999 [5] he was involved in a motion to dismiss patent infringement matter in Molnlycke Health Care AB v. Dumex Medical Surgical, a notable case in Internet law. [6] [7] In 2000 he was involved in a trademark infringement matter in the National Jewish Defense League (JDL) v. Mordechai Levy case which ended in November 2002 when JDL chairman Irv Rubin died in suspicious circumstances in jail, [8] and defended against copyright infringement in the Studio Martis, B.V. v. Joseph D. Wager Smith case. In 2002, Greenberg and Lieberman's involvement in the Ramsey v. Schutt, et al. in the Maryland State Circuit Court for Charles County was influential in changing the rule in Maryland pertaining to what is necessary in a contract to obviate liability.

In 2003, Greenberg was involved in several UDRP or trademark infringement disputes such as Size, Inc. v. Future Media Architects, Jensen Research v. Future Media Architects, Internet Development Corp v. TitleSoft, Internet Development Corp v. Senetek, Quantum Software Systems Ltd v. Future Media Architects, and a copyright infringement case, Future Media Architects v. Corey Richardson. In 2004, the firm continued to represent Future Media Architects and Internet Development Corporation in a series of disputes over UDRP and trademark infringements and other matters including representing Future Media Architects against Cool, Inc., QNX, [9] Capital Networks PTY Ltd, Punto Verde, Murat Yikilmaz and Hay Napa International, and representing Internet Development Corporation against B.S.A. Corporation at Maryland District Court, [10] Freightliner and Lactel.

In 2005, Greenberg was involved in the federal court and mediation in the Ariadne Genomics v. Stratagene California dispute. His firm was hired by Mastercard International Incorporated v. Priceless.com to settle a trademark matter. In 2006, Greenberg was involved in UDRP disputes such as Equifax, inc v. The Tidewinds Group, Inc., Marchex v. Name Development Corp. and Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. v. Tom Weisel House of Entertainment. [11]

In 2007, Greenberg & Lieberman were hired by businessman Antonis Polemitis in a case against Ville de Paris, a Municipal Corporation of the city of Paris at the Virginia Eastern District Court involving the Lanham Act [12] in which the client claimed tortious interference with contract and defamation. They also represented some major global firms in trademark matters such as Nike, Inc. v. Niyad Enterprise in California Central District Court, [13] Microsoft v. Domain Source, Inc. and UDRP cases such as HSBC Finance Corp. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc..

In 2008, Greenberg was involved in a trademark/domain matter between Air China and Airchina.com and with LG Electronics USA and LG.com. He was also hired in a Second Life case between Chris Mead and Jakob Hyvarinen and in the UDRP Genzyme Corporation v. Abadaba S.A. case. In 2009 they again represented Abadaba in a trademark matter against Microsoft and by the Broward Rehab Center Inc. against Rafael Foss. Greenberg also represented dentist Alex McMillan, IV v. Tom Winkler case in a dispute over cybersquatting. The Alexandria Circuit Court ruled in favor of their client McMillan in a case which involved "a legal action initiated against a former employee charged with trademark infringement, trade secret violations, and domain theft." [14]

In 2010, Greenberg was involved in copyright cases in the John M. Smith vs Gosmile, Inc. dispute (settled), and began representing the Second Life firm Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. in a copyright infringement case in California Northern District Court, overlooked by judge Charles R. Breyer. [15] As of October 2011, the Amaretto case is still ongoing. He was also active in the Warren Weitzman v. Lead Networks trademark case and was hired by The ERGO Baby, Inc. v. Amaya Lucy in a UDRP case. [16] In 2011, Greenberg & Lieberman were again hired by ERGO to represent them in another UDRP case against Henghao Zhan Jianzong. In April 2011, Greenberg's firm lost a case representing Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of the Modern Orthodox Ohev Sholom - The National Synagogue in northwest Washington when U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan denied the request of the rabbi to have an upcoming local election rescheduled because it conflicted with the Jewish Passover. [17]

Related Research Articles

Reverse domain name hijacking, occurs where a rightful trademark owner attempts to secure a domain name by making cybersquatting claims against a domain name’s "cybersquatter" owner. This often intimidates domain name owners into transferring ownership of their domain names to trademark owners to avoid legal action, particularly when the domain names belong to smaller organizations or individuals. Reverse domain name hijacking is most commonly enacted by larger corporations and famous individuals, in defense of their rightful trademark or to prevent libel or slander.

The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Domain name speculation, popular as domaining in professional jargon, is the practice of identifying and registering or acquiring generic Internet domain names as an investment with the intent of selling them later for a profit.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d),(passed as part of Pub. L. 106–113 ) is a U.S. law enacted in 1999 that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name. The law was designed to thwart "cybersquatters" who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party. Critics of the ACPA complain about the non-global scope of the Act and its potential to restrict free speech, while others dispute these complaints. Before the ACPA was enacted, trademark owners relied heavily on the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) to sue domain name registrants. The FTDA was enacted in 1995 in part with the intent to curb domain name abuses. The legislative history of the FTDA specifically mentions that trademark dilution in domain names was a matter of Congressional concern motivating the Act. Senator Leahy stated that "it is my hope that this anti-dilution statute can help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and reputations of others".

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a process established by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for the resolution of disputes regarding the registration of internet domain names. The UDRP currently applies to all generic top level domains, some country code top-level domains, and to all new generic top-level domains.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have been acknowledged and protected in China since 1980. China has acceded to the major international conventions on protection of rights to intellectual property. Domestically, protection of intellectual property law has also been established by government legislation, administrative regulations, and decrees in the areas of trademark, copyright, and patent.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intellectual property infringement</span> Illegally breaching a monopoly on an idea

An intellectual property (IP) infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. There are several types of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and trade secrets. Therefore, an intellectual property infringement may for instance be one of the following:

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark</span> Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies a product or service from a particular source and distinguishes it from others. A trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenberg & Lieberman</span>

Greenberg & Lieberman is a national and international law firm based in Washington, D.C. Established in 1996 by Michael Greenberg and Stevan Lieberman, the firm is known for its expertise in the technology-law areas of intellectual property, trademark infringements, domain names, virtual worlds, and software and was listed among 16 influential entities in the field of domain names in 2010. A "boutique law firm", Greenberg & Lieberman credited for being among the first in the world to begin generating a significant revenue and client base via online virtual worlds such as Second Life. Greenberg & Lieberman are also noted for their involvement with media law and military law.

Cybersquatting is the practice of registering, trafficking in, or using an Internet domain name, with a bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.

Bristows is a full-service commercial, law firm, particularly known for its technology and intellectual property work.

<i>Lamparello v. Falwell</i>

Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309, was a legal case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concerning allegations of cybersquatting and trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the right to use the domain name fallwell.com, and provides discussion on cybersquatting as it applies to criticism of a trademark.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark infringement</span> Violation of trademark rights

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

<i>Microsoft Corp. v. Shah</i> Court case in the United States

Microsoft Corp. v. Shah was an Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) case heard before the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Microsoft sued the defendants, Amish Shah and others, for, among other charges, contributory cybersquatting for encouraging others, through videos and software, to infringe on Microsoft's trademarks. The case was settled out of court in July 2011 after judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied Shah's motion for dismissal. Legal observers suggested that, if upheld, the case would prove notable for the court's expansion of the ACPA liability to include contributory cybersquatting.

<i>Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.</i>

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. was a copyright case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a DMCA takedown notice dispute between companies that produce virtual animals on Second Life. Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice to Linden Research, the makers of Second life, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies and demanding their removal. Consequently, Amaretto responded with a counter-DMCA notice and applied to the court for a temporary restraining order to forbid Linden Research from removing their virtual horses. This was granted and held in effect as the case proceeded. Amaretto claimed in court that Ozimal's DMCA notice was copyright misuse and asked for a declaration that its horses did not infringe copyright. Ozimals counterclaimed for copyright infringement. The court eventually dismissed both claims.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zak Muscovitch</span> Canadian intellectual property lawyer (born 1971)

Zak Muscovitch is a Canadian intellectual property lawyer. He is the founder of Domain Name Law Reports and has represented clients before domain name arbitrations in cases against companies like Google, Torstar, and Molson.

Stevan H. Lieberman is an American lawyer, regarded as a legal expert in intellectual property law and patent law. He is a partner of the Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Greenberg & Lieberman, with Michael Greenberg, established in 1996. As part of the firm, Lieberman has been involved in hundreds of UDRP or trademark infringement disputes, and he is considered a pioneer in the technology-law areas of virtual worlds, domain names and software, cited by CNN as "among the virtual world's earning elite." Among the first lawyers in the world to begin generating a significant revenue and client base via online virtual worlds such as Second Life; he is the co-founder and CEO of two virtual reality websites.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

References

  1. ↑ West's Federal Supplement. West Publishing Company. 2003. p. 101.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Attorney Michael Greenberg". Greenberg & Lieberman. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  3. 1 2 "Intellectual Property Law Firm Greenberg & Lieberman Prevails in Trademark, Trade Secret and Cybersquatting Dispute". PR Newswire. March 2010. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  4. ↑ "EVAN K. AIDMAN, Plaintiff, v. MARK S. NELSON d/b/a LAWOFFICES OF MARK S. NELSON, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-CV-1833" (PDF). United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 14 October 1999. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 November 2011. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  5. ↑ "MOLNLYCKE HEALTH CARE AB, Plaintiff, v. DUMEX MEDICAL SURGICAL PRODUCTS LTD., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-1725" (PDF). United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 7 September 1999. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  6. ↑ Quinto, David W. (July 2001). Law of Internet disputes. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 12. ISBN   978-0-7355-2592-4 . Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  7. ↑ Gillies, Lorna E. (15 October 2008). Electronic commerce and international private law: a study of electronic consumer contracts. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 184. ISBN   978-0-7546-4855-0 . Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  8. ↑ "Militant US Jew's 'suicide bid' challenged". BBC. 2002-11-07. Retrieved 2016-05-22.
  9. ↑ "QNX Software Systems Ltd. v. Future Media Architects, Inc. and Thunayan K AL-Ghanim, Case No. D2003-0921". WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  10. ↑ "Internet Development Corp. v. B.S.A. Corporation". Justia.com. 30 January 2004. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  11. ↑ "Thomas Weisel Partners Group Inc. v. Thomas Weisel House of Entertainment c/o S Coleman, Claim Number: FA0704000954028". National Arbitration Forum . Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  12. ↑ "Virginia Eastern District Court Polemitis v. Ville de Paris". Justia.com. 12 January 2007. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  13. ↑ "Nike Inc v. Niyad Enterprises". Justia.com. 26 May 2006. Retrieved 12 October 2011.
  14. ↑ "Intellectual Property Law Firm Greenberg & Lieberman Prevails in Trademark, Trade Secret and Cybersquatting Dispute". PR Newswire. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
  15. ↑ "Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc., 3:10-cv-05696-CRB". RFC Express. 15 December 2010. Archived from the original on 8 September 2012. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
  16. ↑ "The ERGO Baby Carrier, Inc. v. Redacted Claim Number: FA1008001341231". National Arbitration Forum. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
  17. ↑ "Judge Denies Request to Reschedule D.C. Election for Passover". Legal Times. April 15, 2011. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.