Partner
Morgan Smith focuses her practice on trials and disputes related to trademarks, false advertising, and unfair competition. She litigates cases and manages enforcement efforts for some of the world’s most renowned brands, representing clients in a diverse range of industries, including sports equipment, apparel, fitness, food and beverage, travel, consumer electronics, personal healthcare, video games, pet products and services, automotive, and telecommunications.
Morgan’s comprehensive practice includes managing federal district court cases from inception to trial. She also litigates cancellation and opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Morgan has significant experience in obtaining as well as defeating temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions, including those involving counterfeiting and ex parte seizures. She has additional experience handling competitor and consumer advertising challenges, including class actions.
Strategic enforcement counseling and portfolio management are important parts of Morgan’s practice. She counsels clients with large international portfolios on selection, maintenance, and enforcement of trademark rights in the United States and abroad. Morgan has been selected as a Rising Star by Managing Intellectual Property (MIP), recognized as a “Working Mother of the Year” by Seramount (formerly Working Mother), and ranked by World Trademark Review (WTR) for her contributions to the fields of enforcement and litigation.
3:16-cv-01162, S.D. Cal., Judges Sammartino, Stormes
19-1132, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Moore, Wallach
Opposition No. 92059437, TTAB, Judge McCormack
At the lower court, Finnegan prevailed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for client Subaru of America. In that suit, the plaintiff asserted trademark and copyright infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising against Subaru’s annual “Share the Love” holiday-season campaign, which donates money from car purchases to various buyer-designated national and local charities. Subaru’s campaign uses a particular logo comprised of a heart on a hand, and various other “love”-themed designs.
The plaintiff sought enhanced damages, punitive damages over $20 million, and attorneys’ fees. Subaru’s motion to dismiss was based largely on the facial dissimilarities between the parties’ respective designs, which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted on all counts asserted in the complaint, without leave to further amend.
The plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s decision after finding that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege any claim. The appeals court later denied plaintiff’s petition for rehearing. Consistent with the lower court’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the marks at issue were so facially dissimilar that they could not plausibly create a likelihood of confusion, and affirmed the dismissal of the trademark dilution, copyright infringement, and false advertising claims for the same reasons, resulting in a complete win for Subaru.
16-16840, 9th Cir., Judges Lucero, Owens, Thomas
3:16-cv-03384, N.D. Cal., Judge Chesney
2:13-cv-04222, C.D. Cal., Judge Olguin
2:16-cv-08030, C.D. Cal., Judges Stevenson, Walter
3:15-cv-00857, M.D. Tenn., Judges Campbell, Holmes, McCalla
4:15-cv-02274, S.D. Tex., Judge Werlein
5:16-cv-00906, N.D. Cal., Judges Cousins, Freeman
1:16-cv-02434, E.D.N.Y., Judge Brodie
Maglula, Ltd. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al
1:19-cv-01570, E.D. Va., Judge O'Grady
CFA Institute v. American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries et al.
3:19-cv-00012, W.D. Va., Judge Moon
LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. v. Xiaowen
3:16-cv-01162, S.D. Cal., Judges Sammartino, Stormes
Patagonia, Inc. v. Chelsea International Inc.
2:16-cv-08030, C.D. Cal., Judges Stevenson, Walter
Russell Minoru Ono v. Head USA, Inc.
2:13-cv-04222, C.D. Cal., Judge Olguin
Ambev S.A. v. Cervejaria Petropolis SA
19-1132, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Moore, Wallach
Opposition No. 92059437, TTAB, Judge McCormack
Ad Law Buzz Blog
How to Survive a Section 230 Defense: Recent Cases Provide Guidance How to Survive a Section 230 Defense: Recent Cases Provide Guidance
May 1, 2026
Conference
California Lawyers Association 48th IP Institute California Lawyers Association 48th IP Institute
March 6-8, 2025
Long Beach
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
‘Defendant’ Means Defendant – SCOTUS Reverses District Court’s $43M Award of Affiliates’ Profits for Trademark Infringement ‘Defendant’ Means Defendant – SCOTUS Reverses District Court’s $43M Award of Affiliates’ Profits for Trademark Infringement
March 4, 2025
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
USPTO Trademark Fees: Changes for 2025 USPTO Trademark Fees: Changes for 2025
December 12, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
USPTO to Target Fake Trademark Specimens of Use With Expanded Audit Program USPTO to Target Fake Trademark Specimens of Use With Expanded Audit Program
December 3, 2024
Award/Ranking
In the 2026 World Trademark Review 1000, Finnegan Called “The Best of the Best” In the 2026 World Trademark Review 1000, Finnegan Called “The Best of the Best”
February 2, 2026
World Trademark ReviewAward/Ranking
Finnegan Receives Top Tier National Rankings in the 2025 World Trademark Review 1000 Finnegan Receives Top Tier National Rankings in the 2025 World Trademark Review 1000
January 29, 2025
World Trademark ReviewAward/Ranking
Four Finnegan Partners Named 2024 Rising Stars by Managing Intellectual Property Four Finnegan Partners Named 2024 Rising Stars by Managing Intellectual Property
September 30, 2024
Managing Intellectual PropertyAward/Ranking
Finnegan Tops the 2024 World Trademark Review 1000, Receiving New Regional Accolade Finnegan Tops the 2024 World Trademark Review 1000, Receiving New Regional Accolade
February 13, 2024
World Trademark ReviewAward/Ranking
Managing Intellectual Property Names Four Finnegan Partners 2023 Rising Stars Managing Intellectual Property Names Four Finnegan Partners 2023 Rising Stars
October 18, 2023
Managing Intellectual PropertyPress Release
Finnegan Tops the 2023 WTR 1000, with 12 Attorneys Ranked Finnegan Tops the 2023 WTR 1000, with 12 Attorneys Ranked
February 7, 2023
World Trademark ReviewDue to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.