Eric advises on and litigates complex intellectual property matters concerning trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition, counterfeiting, domain names, false advertising, trade secrets, publicity rights, patents, the Internet, websites, social media platforms, mobile apps, licensing and other agreements.

Eric provides pragmatic and cost-effective intellectual property solutions to clients across broad range of industries, including fashion, entertainment, financial, food, cosmetics and real estate.

Eric has extensive experience in both state and federal courts, in contested proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and in UDRP domain name dispute proceedings before the World Intellectual Property Organization and the National Arbitration Forum.

Eric prosecutes, manages and enforces trademark, copyright and domain name portfolios worldwide and negotiates, reviews and drafts IP licenses and other agreements, including website and app licenses and policies.

Eric has worked on several matters seeking to provide rights for gays and lesbians, including: assisting in drafting a Supreme Court amicus brief for petitioners in Lawrence v. Texas; representing five same-sex couples seeking marriage rights in New York in Hernandez v. Robles; representing the same-sex domestic partner of a 9/11 victim in a suit seeking determination of the proper distribution of an award disbursed by the Federal Victim Compensation Fund in Cruz v. McAneney.

Honors & Recognitions

Many of the lawyers here earn vociferous praise from the market: chair Jonathan King and litigator Eric Shimanoff, for example, are “first-rate attorneys who demonstrate mastery of their subject”. Recently, these “zealous advocates” litigated against Crocs on behalf of Car-Freshener. 2019 WTR 1000 – The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals

Eric Shimanoff and William Borchard  "are creative, responsive, diplomatic, methodical and effective – they meet and exceed the highest standards."  2018 WTR 1000 - The World's Leading Trademark Professionals

The Legal 500 (trademark litigation and copyright)

WTR 1000, The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals

Community & Professional Activities

New York State Bar Association - Member

New York Intellectual Property Law Association - Member

American Intellectual Property Law Association - Member



Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP - Associate (2002-2005)

BMG Entertainment - Legal Intern (1999)

Prior to becoming an attorney, Eric taught music and musical theatre at a performing arts high school in Manhattan and directed several musicals in New York and Boston.


Speaking Engagements

  • Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., 04.30.2019
  • .FASHION and other New gTLDs
    CLL Fashion Seminar - Fashion, Technology & the Internet: Opportunities and Challenges, 06.13.2013
  • Top Trademark Cases of 2011, presentation at Toronto Intellectual Property Group
  • Trademark Basics
    Bridge-the-Gap for Newly Admitted New York Attorneys, Practicing Law Institute, 01.09.2012
  • Recent Fashion Industry Cases
    CLL Fashion Seminar: Hot Topics - Selected Issues for the Fashion Industry, 06.15.2011
  • Chloe v. Queen Bee: An Important New Decision on Counterfeit Infringement over the Internet
    Law Seminars International, 10.06.2010
  • Commentator in the documentary 9/11 Millionaire Widows

Social Media

Blog Posts



  • Representative recent opinions include the following:
  • EMI April Music Inc. v. 4MM Games, LLC, 12 Civ. 2080 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. April 7, 2014)Obtained a Statutory Damages award of $535,125 plus interest, and a permanent injunction, against a video game company for willfully infringing the copyrights in seven sound recordings by including them in the Rapstar videogame and making them available as additional downloads. 
  • The Hershey Company v. Promotion in Motion, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 1601 (SDW) (D.N.J. Jan. 18, 2013) - after trial, obtained judgment that defendant candy and confectionery company’s SWISSKISS chocolate candy did not infringe or dilute Hershey’s KISSES trademark. Any similarities flowing from the shared use of the term “kiss” in both parties’ marks were overcome by distinguishing elements in how the marks were presented, as confirmed by defendant’s survey experts.
  • Quirky, Inc. v. Davison Design & Development, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 262 (JFC) (W.D. Pa. Sept. 25,2012) - defeated motion to dismiss claims for, inter alia, trademark infringement, unfair competition, false endorsement and invasion of right to publicity brought by a product development company and its founder/CEO based on competitor's purchase and use of the company's and founder's names and trademarks as keywords that triggered competitor's sponsored ads in various search engines, such as Google, AOL, Bing and Yahoo!, even where company's and founder's names and trademarks did not appear in text of competitor's ad or on competitor's website.
  • Malloy v. EMI Christian Music Group, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 6075 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2012) - obtained dismissal of copyright infringement claim against record labels based on purported unlicensed recording, copying and distribution of song Nobody Greater performed by gospel singer VaShawn Mitchell.  At best, plaintiff alleged he was a co-author of Nobody Greater and that the song was a joint work under copyright law.  No claim thus could lie against record labels who had a license from the other co-author to record, copy and distribute the song.
  • Poindexter v. EMI Record Group, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42174 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2012) - obtained dismissal of copyright infringement claims against record label based on purported unlicensed digital sampling of single note of musical composition and sound recording of Thin Line Between Love and Hate in Arrested Development's 1992 recording Washed Away.  Plaintiff lacked standing to sue based on infringement of the sound recording, whose copyrights admittedly had always been owned by a third party record label.  Moreover, Plaintiff's infringement claim based on musical composition failed for lack of substantial similarity; the Thin Line musical composition and the accused sound recording were "wholly dissimilar" apart from a single note, and any alleged copying was merely de minimis and insufficient to support a claim of infringement.
  • Dessert Beauty, Inc. v. Fox, 568 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) - obtained summary judgment for declaratory judgment plaintiffs cosmetics and fragrance manufacturer Dessert Beauty, Inc. and retailer Sephora USA, Inc. dismissing federal and state trademark claims finding plaintiffs' use of the term "love potion" on and in connection with two of Dessert Beauty's DESSERT beauty products constituted descriptive fair use under the Lanham Act. (Affirmed, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16639 (2d Cir. July 29, 2009)
  • Cruz v. McAneney, 31 A.D.3d 54, 816 N.Y.S.2d 486 (2d Dep't 2006) - obtained affirmation of lower court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss claim brought by surviving domestic partner of a victim of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center against personal representative of decedent to recover her share of a half-million dollar award granted by September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. Appellate Division held that New York State legislature specifically intended "that domestic partners should be compensated from the Fund for the loss of their loved ones."


New York Law School
J.D. 2002, summa cum laude

  • Victor Herbert Copyright Scholarship
  • Notes and Comments Editor, New York Law School Law Review
  • ASCAP Nathan Burkan Memorial Writing Competition - First Place

New England Conservatory of Music
M.M. 1997

State University of New York at Binghamton
B.A. 1994, cum laude


  • New York
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Michigan
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
  • United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States Supreme Court
Attorney Search ›
Back to Page