Practice Area:
“We have experience litigating trademark infringement matters across the United States, including in U.S. district courts and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAAB).”
Contact
311 S. State Street, Suite 450
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
888-941-9933
801-347-5173
801-347-5173
steve@westernip.com
Trademark Litigation
We maintain an active U.S. trademark litigaiton practice, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in trademark infringement actions in U.S. district courts, before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and others. Representative samples of our trademark cases are shown below. Please contact us if you need representation filing or defending a patent or trademark litigation matter.
It is common for trademark holders to presume they have more rights than do and to try and force others out of the market, particularly in oppositions before the TTAB, using trademarks which are indefensible. If you believe your right to use or register a trademark is being violated, or you are being bullied, or you are being unfairly threatened, our lawyers may be able to help you enforce your rights in the courts of the United States and TTAB.
We work to ensure our litigation advocacy is aligned with our clients’ financial considerations, and can provide more cost effective representation that larger firms. Often, cases are forfeited based simply on the costs of the attorney fees required to fight them when litigation cousnel at larger firms is selected.
Recent Federal Litigation
• Penn State v. Keystone Alternatives (Case 3:2-AT-6000) (2020), U.S. District Court | Pennsylvania (trademark infringement/cybersquatting) (Pending).
• In Re Centrifugre Utility (Case 337-TA-1311) (2022), International Trade Commission (ITC).
• Storage Designs v. Patsy Store (Case 2:21-cv-324) (2022), U.S. District Court | Utah.
• Nut Dust Ltd v. Wemer (Case 91270030) (2021), Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (Pending).
• H&H Brands v. Manny Rivas (Case 2:22-cv-180) (2022), U.S. District Court | Utah (Trademark).
• Homevestors v. Joe Homebuyer et al. (Case 3:22-cv-1759) (2022), U.S. District Court | Texas (Trademark).
• Rayware Ltd v. New Creation Brands (Case 2:23-cv-355) (2023), U.S. District Court | Utah (Trademark).
• Innovative Staffing v. ISHR (Case No. 91214407) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and prevailed in cybersquatting/trademark opposition proceeding).
• The Joint Sugarhouse v. I4 Solutions (Case No. 2:16-CV-151) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing Defendants in copyright infringement action).
• Strong College Students v. CHHJ Franchising (Case No. 2:12-CV-1156) U.S. District Court | Arizona (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment).
• EZQuest v. Baorui (Case No. 2:12-CV-730) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter and secured preliminary injunction).
• Goulding v. Hill (Case No 2:14-CV-905), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (cybersquatting case representing Plaintiff terminating with transfer of the disputed domains).
• RMV Enterprises v. ksoftware.com (Case No. 1:12-CV-335) U.S. District Court | Virginia (prevailed representing plaintiff in in rem cybersquatting matter).
• Bad Apple, LLC v. Linear Magnitude, Inc. (Case No. 2:17-cv-76) U.S. District Court for the District Utah (settled on favorable terms).
• Carpenter v. myschool (Case No. 1:15-CV-212) U.S. District Court | Virginia (represented defendant in cybersquatting matter lost on summary judgment days before trial).
• Fashion C.C. v. Apple Computer (Case No. 2:10-CV-195) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing plaintiff settled with permanent injunction).
• Innovative Staffing v. ISHR (Case No. 2:14-CV-927) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant settled on favorable terms).
• International Marketing v. Bradley Morris (Case No 1:10-CV-26) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (prevailed representing Plaintiff with case dismissal).
• Atkinson v. Ronald Fisher (Case No. 2:09-CV-601) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented Plaintiffs in fraud action).
• Web Entertainment Limited v. y8.org (Case No. 1:14-CV-1416) U.S. District Court | Virginia (represented defendant in settled cybersquatting matter).
• Associated Recovery v. Butcher (Case No. 2:16-CV-126) U.S. District Court | Texas (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting matter involving 200 domains).
• MeridainLink v. DH Holdings (Case No. CMB2013-00008) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (represented complainant in post-grant review proceeding before the PTAB).
• Sater v. Kriss (Case No. 2:16-CV-932) U.S. District Court | Arizona (cybersquatting matter).
• Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 4:15-CV-5015) U.S. District Court | Washington (representing plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).
• Savage Companies v. Savage Logistics (Case No 2:16-CV-265) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in trademark infringement matter).
• Planet Blue v. Harmonix (Case No. 1:99-MC-9999) U.S. District Court | Delaware (represented defendant in patent infringement matter).
• Park City Transportation v. Park City Limousines (Case No. 2:15-CV-24) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (representing defendant in trademark infringement matter).
• Matthew Crowder v. Heavy Lifting (Case No. ) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (cybersquatting case).
• Bullex v. JinHakYoo (Case No. 2:10-CV-668) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (prevailed representing plaintiff in cybersquatting matter with injunction).
• RentMaster v. Shain Trading Corporation (Case No 2:10-CV-319) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in cybersquatting case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction).
• TruckMaster Logistics Systems v. Internet Enterprises (Case No. 2:09-CV-374) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (settled representing counterclaimant in cybersquatting matter involving truckmaster.com).
• Rinehart v. Eighty B.N. (Case No. 120700582) Utah’s Second Judicial District Court (prevailed representing plaintiff in rare state court cybersquatting case involving the Lanham Act (a federal statute)).
• FPS Games v. Kyle Meyers (Case No. 91208378) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and prevailed in cybersquatting/trademark opposition proceeding).
• Phi-ten USA v. Rocky Mountain School of Baseball (Case No. 1:10-CV-145) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in trademark infringement matter).
• PrizeWise v. Oppenheimer (Case 2:07-CV-792) U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division (represented plaintiff in breach of NDA matter which was lost on summary judgment).
• JIVE Commerce d/b/a Vino Grotto v. Wine Racks America (Case 1:18-CV-49) (2019), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (trademark infringement).
• Alamo v. Wagmar Technologies (Case No. 91227082) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent and settled in cybersquatting/trademark opposition).
• Fashion C.C. v. Little (Case No. 91217375) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
• Strong College Student Moving v. Freidman (Case No. 92058063) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
• Elevation Distillery v. Salt Lake Distillery (Case No. 91217045) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition settled on favorable terms).
• Oceanside Capital v. AB (Case No. 91205819) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition settled).
• Under Armor v. Gatlin (Case No. 91203875) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented respondent in trademark opposition).
• Scimone v. Tinnus (Case No. 92051876) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
• Savage Logistics v. Savage Companies (Case No. 91221522) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) (represented complainant in trademark opposition).
• Sock City, Inc. v. Oceanside Capital Corp (Case 2:19-CV-831) (2020), U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (cybersquatting case under Lanham Act).