The verdict sends an important message that the small, honest business owner cannot be bullied by a large corporation who wants to stifle fair competition. We are pleased that the jury clearly recognized that we do things the right way and that ADT’s clai
West Palm Beach, Fla. (PRWEB) February 28, 2015
It took the jury less than two hours to agree with Alarm Protection Technology that its name and its acronym, APT, does not infringe upon ADT’s trademark and their representatives do not engage in fraudulent and deceptive sales tactics, according to court documents.
The week-long trial concluded on February 24, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 12-80898-CIV-RYSKAMP/HOPKINS), with Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp presiding. Michael W. Marcil, Esq., Jennifer Nicole, Esq., and Heather Costanzo, Esq. of the Gunster law firm led the Alarm Protection Technology team to victory with the assistance of expert testimony from University of Miami marketing professor Dr. Dan Sarel.
“The verdict sends an important message that the small, honest business owner can succeed in a competitive market using fair competition practices. We are pleased that the jury clearly recognized that we do things the right way and that ADT’s claims were unfounded. As I have always said, ‘we put the customer first,’” said Alarm Protection Technology CEO Adam Schanz.
Alarm Protection Technology currently has customers in 18 states. In the near future, it intends to expand into additional markets while offering added services, resulting in a rebrand to Alder. Its strong growth is largely attributed to its unique residual compensation model. This model has proven to provide a stable employment environment for its sales representatives and creates an inherent incentive to ensure its customers are happy. Based on its strong growth and customers’ positive response to the product and services, Adam Schanz expects sustained, positive growth in the future.