Bio
Celeste Butera is a Partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property and Litigation Practice Teams where she focuses her practice on litigation and appeals involving trademark infringement; copyright infringement; patent infringement; and other business torts and commercial litigation on a wide array of topics in District Courts and Federal Appellate Courts throughout the United States, including Trademark and copyright infringement litigation and appeals, internet and website related intellectual property litigation and appeals, unfair competition, Lanham Act claims, false advertising, disparagement, and contract and licensing disputes. She litigates and argues motions and appeals on behalf of companies throughout the United States.
Ms. Butera also has extensive appellate experience, having handled complex appellate matters in Appellate Courts throughout the country, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, Eleventh and Federal Circuits. Ms. Butera’s practice also includes representing clients in proceedings and appeals through trials before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the Patent and Trademark Office, including opposition and cancellation proceedings. Ms. Butera also counsels clients and provides substantive presentations on all aspects of intellectual property and Internet law, as well as business torts, breach of contract matters and related liabilities.
Ms. Butera has also represented, on a national basis, insurers with respect to a wide range of coverage issues and disputes including issues relating to patent infringement, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, unfair competition, Lanham Act claims, misappropriation of trade secrets, antitrust, as well as a wide variety of other business torts and other coverage issues.
Ms. Butera has earned a national reputation as a successful litigator and appellate lawyer and has been involved in numerous precedent setting and complex legal actions and appeals in Courts throughout the Country.
Representative Matters
Representative Matters
- P.C. Richard & Son v. Samsung Electronics, Co. 22-1337, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (trademark infringement and unfair competition).
- Jon Bargains Inc. v. P.C. Richard & Son, 2020-1013 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (trademark infringement)
- Archforensic LLC v. Arch Engineering, LLC, 21-16022 (WJM) United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (trademark infringement and cybersquatting).
- Ferring v. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC 13-CV-4640 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (trademark infringement and unfair competition).
- Fit N Fun Playscapes, LLC v. Sensory Path Inc. 19-CV-11697 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (trademark infringement and copyright infringement).
- Carson Optical v. Carson Industries, 10 CV00867 (ADS), United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (trademark infringement).
- Kwik Goal, Ltd. v. Youth Sports Publishing Inc., 06 Civ. 395 (HB), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (copyright infringement).
- Kenny v. Ryan Web Solution, LLC, 05 Civ.0727 (DAB), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (copyright and trademark infringement).
- Gemmy Indus. Corp. v. Chrisha Creations Ltd., 04 Civ. 1074 (RWS), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (trademark, copyright and patent infringement).
- Sports Franchise trademark case: prevailed at trial against a major sport franchise in trademark litigation involving a trademark license valued at $16 million. *Confidentiality Agreement in place prevents full disclosure of litigants’ identities.
- Microsoft Corp. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., Docket No. 01-35721, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (As lead counsel, obtained summary judgment and affirmance on appeal that the insurers were not obligated to defend and indemnify Microsoft under the personal and advertising injury provisions of the insurance contracts for class action anti-trust lawsuits filed nationally against Microsoft). 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 5597.
- Chosun Intl v. Chrisha Creations, Ltd., Docket No. 04-1975-cv, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (Copyright infringement and invalidity). 413 F.3d 324.
- Royal Indemn. Co. v. Terra Firma, Inc., Docket Nos. SC17873, 17874, Supreme Court of Connecticut. (Insurance coverage action regarding additional insured provisions). 287 Conn. 183.
- Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Kobrand Corp., Docket No. 8980, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department. (Obtained summary judgment and affirmance on appeal that the insurers were not obligated to defend and indemnify under the personal and advertising injury provisions for class action lawsuits filed nationally against the insured for false and misleading marketing of alcohol to minors). 280 A.D.2d 501.
- Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Center, Inc., Docket No. 88 MAP 2008, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (Whether insurer could obtain reimbursement from the insured for defense fees paid by the insurer where court found the insurer did not have a duty to defend the underlying action against the insured). 606 Pa. 584.
- Connecticut Indem. Co. v. Schindler, Docket No. 2005-06627, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. (The appropriate limits of liability available under the dental incident limits provisions of the insurance contract for underlying claims of dental malpractice). 35 A.D.3d 784.
- American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Quality King Distributers, Docket No. 2000-03695, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. (Whether insurer was obligated to defend underlying trademark infringement action against the insured under the advertising injury provisions of the insurance contract). 280 A.D.2d 501.
- Lebas Fashion Importers of United States v. ITT Hartford Ins. Group, Docket No. B083983, California Court of Appeal, Second District. (Whether insurer was obligated to defend underlying trademark infringement action against the insured under the advertising injury provisions of the insurance contract). 50 Cal. App. 4th 548.
Articles & Publications
- Author, “Southern District Split On Whether ‘Willfulness’ Is Needed To Recover Defendant’s Profits In Federal Trademark Actions,” New York Law Journal, June 17, 2008
- Author, “Websites and Copyright Violations,” Long Island Business News, October 2002
- Author, “Insurance Coverage and Trademark Infringement – – A Common Sense Approach,” Declarations, Winter 1997-1998 (Publication of the Excess/Surplus Lines Claims Association); and Mealey’s Emerging Insurance Disputes, May 1998
