Sound advice from former in-house counsel


Trademark And Copyright

Mulcahy LLP has significant depth in all areas covered by and related to the U.S. Lanham Act, including trademark litigation and counseling in trademark or trade dress infringement and dilution issues, advertising and promotions counseling, as well as unfair competition disputes arising under federal and state law. We also represent clients in a wide range of copyright issues. We handle all types of copyright actions, including disputes over digital rights and internet infringements. We provide significant expertise and experience in protecting clients’ rights against infringement, misappropriation, and deceptive trade practices.

We have comprehensive expertise and experience in the areas of trademarks, trade dress, unfair competition, false advertising, the internet, trade secrets, and copyright laws. Our experience extends from resolution through negotiation, proceedings before the Trademark and Trial and Appeal Board, or domain name arbitrations, to nation-wide litigation involving infringement, misappropriation or deceptive trade practices issues.

We also represent clients engaged in internet domain name disputes seeking to protect their trademarks from bad faith registrants of domain names. Many of these proceedings are governed by the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (often referred to as the “UDRP”) with Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”). We are well-versed at navigating and successfully prosecuting ICANN proceedings.

Our successful intellectual litigation practice stems from our ability to handle complex commercial litigation at all stages of a case, from a motion to dismiss through discovery to trial. Our success also comes from our unmitigated resolve at all times to understand the business of our clients and their business objectives.



Related Articles




  • Stuft Pizza v. Rai

    Stuft Pizza v. Rai

    (Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented a franchisor who sued four terminated franchisees for trademark infringement and related claims. The firm also defended the franchisees’ $3.5 million counterclaim for fraud and breach of contract.

    Learn More >>>

  • Submarina v. Sial

    Submarina v. Sial

    (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California) the firm obtained a TRO on behalf of a franchisor against a franchisee for violation of the Lanham Act.

    Learn More >>>

  • Melt Franchising V. PMI Enterprises, Inc.

    Melt Franchising V. PMI Enterprises, Inc.

    Mulcahy LLP obtains for franchisor-client a preliminary injunction and an order from the Court granting the franchisor management of the terminated franchisee’s store following its breach of the franchise agreement.

    Learn More >>>

  • California’s Franchise Relation Act Thwarts Franchisee’s Attempt To Terminate Franchise Agreement

    California’s Franchise Relation Act Thwarts Franchisee’s Attempt To Terminate Franchise Agreement

    California’s Franchise Relation Act Thwarts Franchisee’s Attempt To Terminate Franchise Agreement

    Read More >>>

  • Minute Order Holding Defendant in Contempt and Awarding Attorneys' Fees

    Minute Order Holding Defendant in Contempt and Awarding Attorneys' Fees

    Mulcahy LLP, on behalf of client The Tutoring Centor, secured preliminary injunction enjoining defendants' unlawful business activities following the termination of the parties' franchise agreement. Defedants were later held in contempt of the preliminary injunction and sanctioned in the form of paying all of Mulcahy LLP's attorneys' fees.

    See Court's Minute Order >>>

  • Restaurant Franchisees Materially Breached Their Franchise Agreements By Refusing To Offer Discount Menu Items
  • Closet Tailors, LLC v. Gary Neil Poisson

    Closet Tailors, LLC v. Gary Neil Poisson

    In Closet Tailors, LLC v. Gary Neil Poisson (JAMS, Orange County, January 2010), a former multi-unit licensee was in violation of his license agreements for: (1) failing to pay monies due to the licensor; (2) violating the noncompetition provision of the license agreements; and (3) failing to comply with the post termination provisions of the license agreements.

    Learn More >>>

  • American Isuzu v. Fladeboe

    American Isuzu v. Fladeboe

    (U.S. District Court, Central District of California) the firm, on behalf of the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, successfully prosecuted a vehicle dealer for trademark infringement after the dealer sued for breach of contract.

    Learn More >>>

  • Budget Blinds Enforcement Actions.

    Budget Blinds Enforcement Actions.

    Mulcahy LLP filed the following lawsuits on behalf the same franchisor client to recover unpaid fees, enforce the non-competition clause in the franchise agreements, and to protect the client’s trademarks and trade secrets against existing or former franchisees that were operating outside the system.

    Learn More >>>

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Asta Saknyte, et al.

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Asta Saknyte, et al.

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, January 2010), Mulcahy LLP initiated a lawsuit on behalf of a franchisor against former franchisees for their: (1) failure to come current with their monetary obligations; (2) violation of the noncompetition provision of the franchise agreement; (3) unauthorized use of the franchisor’s proprietary marks; and (4) failure to comply with the post termination provisions of the franchise agreement.

    Learn More >>>

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Budget Blinds & Shutters, et al.

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Budget Blinds & Shutters, et al.

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, January 2010), defendant commenced operation of a competing business utilizing a trade name confusingly similar to that of franchisor Budget Blinds, Inc.’s proprietary marks.

    Learn More >>>

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Juan Carlos Carlin

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Juan Carlos Carlin

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, March 2010), defendant, a former licensee, continued to operating a competing business utilizing the licensor’s service marks and trade name and in violation of the noncompetition provision contained within the parties’ license agreement.

    Learn More >>>

  • Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Sherre Paschal, et al.

    Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Sherre Paschal, et al.

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, May 2010), Mulcahy LLP initiated litigation on behalf of a franchisor against former franchisees for breach of contract, service mark infringement and injunctive relief.

    Learn More >>>

  • Clark Equipment Company v. Lift Parts Mfg.

    Clark Equipment Company v. Lift Parts Mfg.

    Jim Mulcahy successfully represented Clark Equipment in cases brought under the United States Copyright Act, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, federal and state unfair competition law, and under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, their counterparts under state antitrust laws, and the Robinson Patman Act.

    Learn More >>>

  • KFC Corporation v. Parvez Shaikh, et al.

    KFC Corporation v. Parvez Shaikh, et al.

    (United States District Court, Central District of California, April 2009), Mulcahy LLP initiated a lawsuit on behalf of a franchisor against a former franchisee for claims of breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair business practices, among others.

    Learn More >>>

  • Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corporation

    Lippo v. Mobil Oil Corporation

    (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois), Lawmen’s and Shooter’s Supply, Inc. v. Smith and Wesson (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida), and Smith and Wesson v. Knight Enterprises (U.S. District Court, Arizona) Jim Mulcahy was lead trial counsel for Smith and Wesson and Mobil in claims alleging violations of antitrust laws, trademark infringement, violation of franchising statutes, and breach of manufacturer/dealer contracts.

    Learn More >>>

  • Lunkenheimer v. Tomkins, P.L.C.

    Lunkenheimer v. Tomkins, P.L.C.

    (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio) Jim Mulcahy was the lead trial counsel for Tomkins, P.L.C., a multinational company based in the United Kingdom, in a suit brought by an industrial valve company alleging breach of contract, fraud, trademark infringement, antitrust violations, theft of trade secrets and unfair competition.

    Learn More >>>

  • Melt Franchising , LLC v. PMI Enterprises, Inc.

    Melt Franchising , LLC v. PMI Enterprises, Inc.

    Melt Franchising, a gelato italiano franchisor, terminated a Massachusetts franchisee for violating terms of the franchise agreement. Following the termination, Melt retained Mulcahy LLP, who immediately filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting that the franchisee comply with the post-termination provisions of the franchise agreement.

    Learn More >>>

  • Play N Trade Enforcement Actions.

    Play N Trade Enforcement Actions.

    Mulcahy LLP filed the following lawsuits on behalf the same franchisor client to recover unpaid fees, enforce the non-competition clause in the franchise agreements, and to protect the client’s trademarks and trade secrets against former franchisees operating outside the system.

    Learn More >>>


CONTACT MULCAHY LLP®

FOR MORE INFORMATION

 
 
 
 
 


mulcahyfontlogo.jpg

4 Park Plaza, Suite 1230
Irvine, CA 92614
T 949.252.9377
F 949.252.0090

Copyright ©2012 Mulcahy LLP. All rights reserved. The transmission of information to and from the site, in part or in whole, does not create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between senders and/or recipients and Mulcahy LLP.

Privacy Policy and our Disclaimer.   Franchise Law

mulcahyfontlogo.jpg