On January 23, 2024, Justice Livote of the Queens County Commercial Division issued a decision in Bastidas v. Garcia, 2024 NY Slip Op. 50073(U), holding that a conversion claim can be based on the use of a trademark, explaining:
Regarding the fourth cause of action, conversion requires proof of plaintiff’s ownership or superior possessory right to identifiable property and defendants’ unauthorized exercise of dominion over the property excluding plaintiff’s right. A conversion claim may be based on specifically identifiable money, such as specific settlement proceeds. Although defendants establish that plaintiff’s conversion claim is not based on specifically identifiable money, they fail to demonstrate that the trademark is not a proper subject for a conversion claim. Defendants mistakenly rely on Thyroff v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (8 NY3d 283, 292—93 [2007]) to support their contention that a conversion claim may not be based on intangible property. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals held that a conversion claim may be based on electronic records, which were intangible property. In addition, the purpose of the Fair Trade Law is to protect the property and good will of the producer or owner in his trade name or trade-mark from injury or unfair competition by price cutting or discounts on resale, which indicates that a property interest in a trademark may exist. Thus, dismissal of the conversion cause of action is unwarranted.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).