Our counseling services often begin at a trademark’s inception with proactive advice during the selection and prosecution process to help avoid or minimize the chances of litigation. But when problems arise and valuable trademark rights are at stake or an accusation has been made, we believe it pays to have seasoned attorneys on your side. Representing both plaintiffs and defendants, our attorneys have decades of experience handling cases that span numerous industries and implicate all types of trademark rights. We regularly appear in district courts and federal circuit courts of appeals as well as before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and other tribunals.
Our vast litigation experience makes our attorneys well versed in the best ways to approach cases, whether large or small, complex or straightforward. We assess the potential risks and rewards and provide creative solutions for clients of all sizes.
Our litigation practice covers all types of trademark infringement and dilution cases involving trademarks, service marks, trade dress, product configuration, trade names, domain names, letters, numbers, colors, and telephone numbers. We have an impressive track record of favorably resolving disputes for our clients, whether by choosing a forum that gives clients the best chance to win on the law, filing a motion to dismiss, obtaining an early temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, positioning a case for settlement, moving for summary judgment, or taking the case to trial.
One of our strengths is the use of experts to enhance our clients’ legal positions. For many years, we have worked with numerous consumer survey experts on a wide range of issues in trademark litigation, including likelihood of confusion, likelihood of dilution, genericness, secondary meaning, and fame. We also make strategic use of other experts in areas such as linguistics, marketing, consumer psychology, industry practices, and damages.
23-1150, 4th Cir.
After a four-day trial, secured a jury ruling for Under Armour that Armorina’s use of the ARMORINA mark constitutes trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution.
1:19-cv-02417, D. Md., Judge Boardman
1:19-cv-01570, E.D. Va., Judge O'Grady
3:19-cv-00012, W.D. Va., Judge Moon
Obtained preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages in high-profile infringement in China. The Supreme People’s Court, the highest court in China, affirmed the decision, securing a complete win for Under Armour.
People’s Higher Court of Fujian Province of the People’s Republic of China
8:17-cv-01795, M.D. Fla., Judges Jung, Honeywell
2:17-cv-03027, C.D. Cal., Judges Walter, Wilner
19-10013, 11th Cir., Judges Wilson, Carnes, Branch
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Ranks at the Top of the Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars Rankings
June 28, 2024
Announcement
Three Finnegan Partners Recognized as World Trademark Review Global Leaders
June 6, 2024
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Tops the 2024 World Trademark Review 1000, Receiving New Regional Accolade
February 13, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.