The firm’s lawyers recognize that your brand and your trademarks —and the goodwill they represent— are among your company’s most valuable assets.  We are experienced and adept at handling the litigation of trademark and false advertising disputes arising under the Lanham Act and related state unfair competition laws.  We understand that trademark and unfair competition matters frequently require urgent attention in the form of a preliminary injunction or a TRO proceeding.  We are willing and able to work around the clock to pursue or defend expeditious matters relating to your company’s goodwill.  We are proud to have been retained for, and to have been successful in, numerous trademark and advertising matters. Relatedly, the firm protects your brands in cyberspace and has successfully handled domain name and cybersquatting disputes for clients both in UDRP arbitration and in federal courts nationwide.

The firm was (or is):

• Lead counsel for a small, disruptive media streaming company against a large, multi-national company that settled after the court indicated its intention to grant the firm’s summary judgment motion on the plaintiff’s false advertising and unfair competition claims;
• Lead counsel for a Fortune 500 company seeking a declaration that its client’s sale of aftermarket repair vehicle grilles allegedly embodying trademarks of large original equipment manufacturers did not constitute trademark infringement under the doctrines of functionality and the right to repair, and that such claims are barred by laches, acquiescence, and estoppel.  The case settled in an early preliminary verdict with the magistrate judge recommending denying the OEM’s motion to dismiss on all grounds;
• Lead counsel for the nation’s largest provider of legal funding services in a trademark infringement matter wherein the firm’s two motions for partial summary judgment were granted, maximum statutory cybersquatting damages were awarded, and the court found the case was exceptional granting the full amount of the firm’s attorney fees; and
• Lead counsel for a large Pizza Hut franchisee in a defensive trademark infringement matter asserted by Little Ceasars wherein a settlement and co-existence agreement was negotiated based on the client’s prior use of the asserted trademarks.