Jacob Jacoby Research Inc

Website Links

Description

As a result of pre-trial settlements - usually on terms favorable to his clients - the majority of Jacob Jacoby's surveys (and critiques of surveys) do not reach court. Some notable examples include the following: Government Employees Insurance Company v. Google, Incorporated, et al. (E.D. Va. 2005). Suit Suit claimed Google's sponsored links advertisements were likely confusing and deceptive. After hearing the Google counsel's cross-examination of the GEICO survey expert, which was informed by Google counsel's knowledge of the methodology of Jacoby's survey for Google and criticism Jacoby provided of GEICO's survey, the court found numerous problems with GEICO' survey and urged plaintiff to settle. Removing potential barriers, the settlement was worth billions, contributing to the phenomenal growth in Google's advertising revenue. Kropinski et al. v. Johnson & Johnson (2001). Suit claimed sales of 1 Day Acuvue contact lenses were boosted by advertising and packaging claims advising consumers to use these lenses only once, even though the product was identical to regular Acuvue lenses which could be cleaned daily and worn for several weeks. In part as a result of the six surveys Jacoby conducted for plaintiffs, defendant agreed to a settlement worth $840 million, the largest settlement in as deceptive advertising case to that point in time. In the overwhelming number of instances where Jacoby has given testimony, his clients have prevailed. While courts do not always comment upon his testimony, selected comments from U.S. District and Circuit Court and the TTAB follow: "In sum, the Jacoby testimony and survey [proffered on behalf of the opposer] do not support the applicant's claim that the [phone] chirp has acquired distinctiveness for applicant's cellular telephones." US PTO, TTAB, Opinion in: Nextel Communications, Incorporated [oppose] v. Motorola, Incorporated [applicant]. Opposition No. 91164353, June 12, 2009. “There was a second survey that was offered into evidence. Lancome chose a renowned expert to design its study. Jacoby designed a survey for Lancome to test the extent to which use of the word Juicy in connection with Lancome was likely to cause confusion …. It found negligible, if any, evidence of confusion. [FN 33: “It is unnecessary to spend time addressing Couture ’s attacks on the Jacoby survey … Suffice it to say that the attacks on Jacoby ’s well-designed survey were strained and unpersuasive. ” ] From the Opinion and Order, Juicy Couture, Incorporated and L.C. Licensing, Incorporated v. L ’Oreal USA, Incorporated and Luxury Products, LLC. U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y. April 19, 2006. 04 Civ. 7203 (DLC). “Based upon Dr. Jacoby ’s testimony, his expert report, the evidence regarding the methodology and questions employed in conducting the survey, and answers given by the survey respondents, the Court finds that Dr. Jacoby ’s survey results are persuasive evidence that actual confusion is likely. ” Red Bull GmBH and Red Bull North America, Incorporated v. Matador Concepts, Incorporated and Leslie A. Gilmer. U.S.D.C. CD CA. Decided Jan 13, 2006, Filed Jan 13, 2006. Case No. CV 04-9006-JFW (PLAx). “ … Defendant WhenU.com produced Dr.

Products & services

Similar companies nearby