When it becomes necessary for a company to enforce its trademarks against infringers, or when a client is facing allegations of trademark infringement, Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys represent clients in all aspects of trademark litigation before courts, agencies, and other tribunals. During the past ten years, WBD teams have litigated more than 230 trademark cases in federal courts.
We regularly prosecute and defend oppositions, cancellations, and appeals before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, having taken multiple cases through the trial phase. This deep experience before the TTAB has given our team a practical, hands-on understanding that benefits our clients. We also prosecute and defend domain name proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and other ICANN sanctioned domain name dispute resolution policies.
We initiate and defend false advertising and deceptive trade practice actions before federal and state agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau.
Fulton & Roark, LLC v. Duke Cannon Supply Company LLC, M.D.N.C. (1:20-cv-00106). Represented Fulton & Roark in trademark infringement action against competitor using the FULTON mark in conjunction with men’s cologne and obtained a favorable settlement whereby opponent stopped using the FULTON mark.
The Scotts Company v. SBM Life Sciences, S.D. Ohio (2:19-cv-01275). Defended SBM Life Sciences in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by a direct competitor, Scotts, involving use of a purported trademark in connection with law fertilizer products. After months of litigation, the case was settled with no monetary payment and no disruption of SBM’s business.
JLG Indus., Inc. v. Lingong Group Jinan Heavy Machinery Co., Ltd., et al., M.D. Pa. (1:19-cv-00186). Represented defendants and quickly settled a case involving a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Guided company to an efficient resolution that allowed them to continue operations in the U.S. and worldwide.
Revel’s Barbecue of North Carolina, Inc. v. Wylie F. Cartrette, E.D.N.C. (7:19-cv-0094). Represented Revel’s Barbecue of North Carolina in a trademark infringement action against a competitor that claimed common lineage to the original Revel’s barbecue from the early 20th century. Obtained a favorable settlement and rights for the clients.
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company v. PetSmart, Inc., E.D. Mo. (4:18-cv-02132). Represented PetSmart, Inc. in a trademark infringement dispute with Nestlé.
Coen Company Inc. v. Pan International Ltd., N.D.Cal. (No. 14-cv-3392). Represented Coen and John Zink Co. in contract litigation involving Chinese trademark registrations; dismissed with prejudice pursuant to stipulation.*
Ewe Group, Inc. v. The Bread Store, LLC, N.D. Ga. (1:14-cv-2377). Represented family-owned Asian bakery, and obtained a preliminary injunction against a competitor who was infringing the client’s trademarks.
Trademarks are a vital part of every company’s intellectual property portfolio, regardless of sector, and they require ongoing monitoring and protection. When it becomes necessary for a company to enforce its trademarks against infringers, or when a client is facing allegations of infringement, Womble Bond Dickinson’s talented team of trademark litigation attorneys are ready to represent clients before courts, agencies, and other tribunals.
During the past ten years, our trademark infringement attorneys have litigated more than 230 trademark cases in federal courts, developing invaluable knowledge and experience with every case. This track record, paired with our firm’s global reach, gives our skilled trademark litigators the resources they need to offer clients around the world fully-tailored strategies to effectively defend trademark infringement claims.
Dedicated to providing clients with the support they need to protect their IP assets and defend against allegations, our trademark litigators work alongside companies from a wide range of sectors. From manufacturers within the Life Sciences sector, to businesses operating within the highly-competitive Retail and Consumer industry, we are capable of tailoring our advice to each client’s industry and regulatory environment.
Trademark Litigation Services
Our trademark infringement lawyers regularly provide the following services:
Prosecute and defend oppositions, cancellations, and appeals before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with practical, hands-on understanding, having taken multiple cases through the trial phase.
Prosecute and defend domain name proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and other ICANN sanctioned domain name dispute resolution policies.
Initiate and defend false advertising and deceptive trade practice actions before federal and state agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau.
Whether you need support defending a trademark claim or are building a case against a competitor, our trademark infringement attorneys can help. To get in touch, complete our convenient contact form, or contact our staff directly for any specific questions.
Need legal advice and guidance in Trademark Litigation?
Our team is able to help provide solutions to you and your organization. Browse through our lawyers and professional staff to find the right attorney near you.
Examples of our work and how we’ve helped companies of all sizes with a wide range of challenges.
Representative Experience
Fulton & Roark, LLC v. Duke Cannon Supply Company LLC, M.D.N.C. (1:20-cv-00106). Represented Fulton & Roark in trademark infringement action against competitor using the FULTON mark in conjunction with men’s cologne and obtained a favorable settlement whereby opponent stopped using the FULTON mark.
The Scotts Company v. SBM Life Sciences, S.D. Ohio (2:19-cv-01275). Defended SBM Life Sciences in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by a direct competitor, Scotts, involving use of a purported trademark in connection with law fertilizer products. After months of litigation, the case was settled with no monetary payment and no disruption of SBM’s business.
JLG Indus., Inc. v. Lingong Group Jinan Heavy Machinery Co., Ltd., et al., M.D. Pa. (1:19-cv-00186). Represented defendants and quickly settled a case involving a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Guided company to an efficient resolution that allowed them to continue operations in the U.S. and worldwide.
Revel’s Barbecue of North Carolina, Inc. v. Wylie F. Cartrette, E.D.N.C. (7:19-cv-0094). Represented Revel’s Barbecue of North Carolina in a trademark infringement action against a competitor that claimed common lineage to the original Revel’s barbecue from the early 20th century. Obtained a favorable settlement and rights for the clients.
Nestlé Purina PetCare Company v. PetSmart, Inc., E.D. Mo. (4:18-cv-02132). Represented PetSmart, Inc. in a trademark infringement dispute with Nestlé.
Coen Company Inc. v. Pan International Ltd., N.D.Cal. (No. 14-cv-3392). Represented Coen and John Zink Co. in contract litigation involving Chinese trademark registrations; dismissed with prejudice pursuant to stipulation.*
Ewe Group, Inc. v. The Bread Store, LLC, N.D. Ga. (1:14-cv-2377). Represented family-owned Asian bakery, and obtained a preliminary injunction against a competitor who was infringing the client’s trademarks.
*Handled at a prior firm.
You might be interested in...
Featured Content
Pete Bromaghim Speaks on “Trademark Law Essentials for Marketing Professionals” at Rural Broadband Conference
This selection will switch the website from presenting information primarily about the United Kingdom to information about the United States. If you would like to switch back, you may use location selection options at the top of the page.
Contact
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any legal matter until we authorize you to do so. To initiate a possible representation, please call one of our lawyers or staff members.
By clicking the “ACCEPT” button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that, even if you submit information that you consider confidential in an effort to retain us, our review of that information will not create an obligation on us to keep it confidential and will not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.
Please click the “ACCEPT” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.
