Our Track Record
Intellectual Property Litigation
We regularly represent clients in trademark, copyright, patent, and trade secret litigation matters in federal courts across the country. A sample of these cases include:
Gray Television Group, Inc. v Found Footage Festival, LLC et al, 17-cv-02232, Eastern District of New York. We represented the Found Footage Festival, touring comedy event showcasing the collection of unintentionally funny video clips. The event’s founders, a comedy duo, were accused of copyright infringement and fraud after appearing on a local morning news as “Chop and Steele,” a clearly fake strongman group, and using clips of that appearance in a compilation video. The case was settled on favorable settlement terms. A summary of the lawsuit is provided by our clients here and was featured on Vice News here.
State of Michigan v M22, LLC, 16-cv-01084, Western District of Michigan. We represented M22 against the State of Michigan’s attempt to cancel certain trademark registrations. The Court found the State of Michigan lacked any concrete injury and dismissed the case in our client’s favor based on a lack of standing.
Rosta AG v Lovejoy, Inc., 16-cv-000199, Western District of Michigan. We represent Rosta AG, a Swiss-based manufacturer of rubber suspension elements in a trademark and trade dress dispute. The defendant, a former licensee, filed counterclaims based on the parties’ previous contractual relationship. However, Rosta argued the contract required litigation to be conducted pursuant to Swiss law and in Switzerland. The Court agreed and dismissed the counterclaims.
Rohn v Viacom et al, 14-cv-00083, Western District of Michigan. We represented an ecommerce business owner accused of trademark infringement. The Court found our client was not making a “trademark use” of the relevant marks merely based on the resale of items and dismissed the claims against our client.
We are proud to protect and enforce the First Amendment. Often times, that means protecting someone’s freedom to engage in speech that we may not necessarily agree with. However, from Tinker’s Jacket to Bong Hits for Jesus, First Amendment issues explore the limits of one of our country’s founding principles. And to protect everyone’s right to free speech, minority voices must be protected.
We serve as local counsel to the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) and the Cato Institute in People v Keith Wood. Mr. Wood was arrested and convicted of improperly influencing a jury by handing out FIJA brochures regarding juror rights. Mr. Wood’s case is currently pending on appeal before the Michigan Court of Appeals. More information about the case can be found on the FIJA’s website here.
We serve as local counsel to Speech First in connection with the group’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the University of Michigan’s rules and regulations that prohibit “harassment,” but so broadly define the term to impressible include protected speech. Speech First is challenging the regulations as violate of the First Amendment and being unconstitutionally vague. The case remains pending.
Through our unique understanding of domain name issues and federal court litigation, we have recovered approximately $4 million dollars worth of stolen domain names though federal court litigation throughout the United States. We have also recovered or protected numerous domain names through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
We have assisted several clients that have suffered an invasion of their privacy by some of the largest corporations in the world, ranging from stolen cell phone photos to improper videotaping of employees.
The firm has represented several men and women injured by former partners improperly sharing private photos and videos of them online. Our work has included assisting in the removal of the content from online, negotiating settlement agreements, and initiating litigation to protect our client’s rights.
In Kemp v Green Beach Hayes Memorial Hospital, No. 315441, we obtained a published Michigan Court of Appeals decision finding that medical marijuana patents/employees fired for testing positive for marijuana were not disqualified for unemployment benefits under state law.