Trademarks
With over 6,000 federal applications filed, our firm is ranked among the top 10 U.S. law firms. Our experienced attorneys are able to provide comprehensive and cost effective services, including conducting trademark searches, filing applications and trademark monitoring. We also represents our clients in oppositions, cancellations and infringment matters.
Call us at 818-380-1900 to speak directly with a trademark attorney.
U.S. Federal Trademark Preparation and Filing
$300*Includes:
- Drafting and filing of your trademark application
- Consultation with an expert trademark attorney
- Responding to non-substantive office actions
- Notification of any office actions or USPTO inquiries
*Plus $275 USPTO Official Filing Fee
Trademark Services and Fees:
Sample of Our Federal Court Litigation Victories:
| Telebrands Corp. v. NewMetro Design, LLC, District of New Jersey, Case No. 16-1981-WHW (2016) Defeated plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, resulting in favorable settlement. Read Decison |
| Golfetto Sangati S.R.L. v. Sangati Berga S.A., District of Utah, Case No. 14-00223-DN (2014) Represented Brazilian milling equipment manufacturer in U.S. trademark dispute with Italian competitor; obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s claims as part of global co-existence agreement. |
| Curtis v. Shinsachi Pharmaceuticals, California Central District Court, Case No. 14-00591-ODW (2014) Obtained judgment for client in cybersquatting case, including recovery of monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, cancellation of three federal registered trademarks, and transfer of three domain names. Read Decison |
| Ryan Kang v. Bleu Coffee, U.S. Federal District Court Case No. 14-03528-RSWL-PJW. (2014) Obtained a favorable settlement for our client in a copyright infringement matter. |
| Pearson Facial Plastic Surgery, P.A. v. J.M. Pearson, M.D., Inc., California Central District Court, Case No. 13-03440-SJO (2013) Sucessfully obtained a favorable settlement for our client in a trademark infringement matter. |
Sample of Our Successful Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Cases
| Team International Marketing, N.V. v. JMM Lee Properties, LLC, Cancellation No. 92057196 (TTAB 2017) Successfully cancelled CALORIC registration based on a finding of likelihood of confusion with multi-national appliance producer’s KALORIK mark for cooking appliances. Read Decision |
| Terry Nazon v. Charlotte Ghiorse, 119 USPQ2d 1178 (TTAB 2016) (precedential) Successfully dismissed opposition by showing opposer’s mark SEXSTROLOGY is merely descriptive and lacks acquired distinctiveness. Read Decision |
| Alexander Kronik v. Sayed Najem, Cancellation No. 92058162 (TTAB 2016) Successfully cancelled ALIKEU registration based on a finding of likelihood of confusion with client’s prior mark ALIKE for a social networking mobile software. Read Decision | Red Bull vs. Andale Energy TTAB Opposition No. 91210860 Successfully dismissed opposition on the grounds that the marks at issue were simply too dissimlar to cause a likelihood of confusion. Read More |
| Delta Air Lines, Inc. vs. Delta Van Lines, Inc. TTAB Opposition No. 91168554 Successfully defended our client's mark against an opposition filed by Delta Air Lines. Read More |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation vs. Jaya Medical Supplies, Inc., TTAB Opposition No. 91185716 Successfully defended our client's mark against an opposition filed by Exxon Mobile Corporation. |
| Choice First Distribution, LLC v. John L. Brown TTAB Opposition No. 92044116, Successfully cancelled the trademark CHRONIC 187 with a showing that the registration was void ab initio due to the registrant’s mere token use of its trademark. Read More |
Sample of Our Successful Office Actions Responses
| Refusals based on Likelihood of Confusion: |
| Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between GLUCOJOINT, Ser. No. 85537657, and GLUZOJOINT-F, Reg. No. 3788282 -- both for dietary supplements. Read More |
| Argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between FILTER PRO Ser. No. 86170150 for air and liquid filters for industrial installations, and FILTER PRO Reg. No. 2509352 for oil filters, air filters, and fuel filters. Read More |
| Argued sucessfully that no likelihood of confusion exists between EXCELLANCE Ser. No. 79138280 for perfumes and cosmetics, and EXCELLENCE Reg. No. 1116798 for hair coloring preparations owned by L'Oreal and between EXCELLENCE Reg. No. 3553048 for colognes, perfumes and cosmetics. Read More |
| Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between SPYRAL, Ser. No. 85479842, for "live performances by a musical band" and SPYRALI, Reg. No. 3627046, for "organization of exhibitions for cultural or entertainment purposes." Read More |
| Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between AZBOOKS, Ser. No. 85514623, and A-to-Z MYSTERIES, Reg. No. 2235339 -- both for "books". Read More |
| Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between CSS CORREA CLAIMS SERVICE, Ser. No. 85335538, and CSS COASTAL CLAIMS SERVICES, Reg. No. 3208433, and CSS, Reg. No. 3037532 -- all for insurance-related services. Read More |
| Successfully argued that no likelihood of confusion exists between ELECTBENEFITS, Ser. No. 86351419, and SELECTBENEFIT Reg. No. 1722413 both for financial services. Read More |
| Refusals based on Descriptiveness: |
| Successfully argued that COURSE ASSIGN, Ser. No. 85608396 is not "merely descriptive" for on-line software which allows students and teachers to correspond and discuss homework assignments because the "COURSEASSIGN" services do not literally "assign courses", and COURSEASSIGN is a "coined term" with a unique, non-descriptive meaning. Read More |
| Successfully argued that a mark comprised of Chinese characters which transliterates and translates into the English CLASSIC BLUE COLOR Ser. No. 79108134 is not "merely descriptive" for an alcoholic spirit because, although the product packaging for the beverage was blue, the liquid itself was not blue; and alcoholic beverage makers commonly advertise their products using color themes in a non-descriptive fashion, and without referring to the actual color of the beverage. Read More |
| Successfully argued that the mark XLBRAKE, Ser. No. 85351126 is not "merely descriptive" for "extra-large" sized auto brakes because "XL" refers to "acceleration", not the size of the brakes; and because auto brakes are not normally sold in "extra-large" size. Read More |
