A Few Representative Matters

.

• KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression, 543 U.S. 111, 125 S.Ct. 542 (2004)

  Practice Area: Trademark infringement

  Date: Oct 05, 2004

  Outcome: Won 9-0

  Description:  Client received a cease and desist letter demanding that client stop using a trademark that client believed was generic, and if not generic then descriptive. After convincing District Court judge that the fair use defense warranted entering a summary judgment in client's favor, the 9th Circuit reversed ruling that the fair use defense is not available if there is resulting confusion. We then brought the case to Supreme Court and won, establishing that the fair use defense to trademark infringement is a viable defense even if there would be resulting confusion.

• ​

• Talent Mobile Development, Inc. v. Headios Group, et al., Case No. 18cv0156 US District Court, Central District of California

​

Practice Area:  Trademark Infringement

Jury Verdict award of $710,000 in favor of client, and Injunction Granted.

Description:   Parties fought over the right to the trademark “REAL CALLER” in connection with caller identification applications. At issue were determinations of who the prior user was, the territoriality of the prior use,  whether or not client’s acquisition of the mark REAL CALLER ID during the course of the lawsuit was transferable to Client.  Notably, the gathering of evidence of client’s earliest uses was challenging  since the documents were scattered and mostly in the possession of a Chinese national who client was not able to contact.  Ultimately,  we had to prove prior use via the WayBack Machine and other indirect evidence. 

 

• Federal Republic of Germany v Albert Sendrey, Case No. BC124144 filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court

 

          Practice Area: Litigation

          Date: Jan 22, 1998

          Outcome: Jury Nullification Verdict in favor of client, Albert Sendrey

          Description: German government sued former holocaust survivor for fraud and theft for cashing pension                         payments intended for his deceased father, also a holocaust survivor. Client and his family were interned                       in the Buchenwald concentration camp, but were let out early in the War due to the fact that client happened to             have been born in the US while his parents were visiting. Client and his family were subjected to horrific                         abuse as all others in the concentration camp, and client felt entitled to the funds. Due to the criminal natural of

          the activity, client exercised his rights under the 5th amendment not to testify at deposition. The Court then

          refused to let the client testify at trial. The Court also refused to let the defense move forward with its claim of

          unjust enrichment, and refused to let the defense even utter the words Nazi or Holocaust. Yet, using just client's           infectious smile as a tool, we were able to silently persuade the jury to rule in client's favor and render a

          defense verdict in a case of jury nullification.

 

• Frank-Lin Distillers Ltd. v. Megawine, Inc. et al. filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court 

• Practice Area: Business Litigation

• Date: June 2016

  Outcome: Jury Verdict in favor of client, Megawine on cross-complaint

•                   Trial Verdict in favor of client, on alter-ego claim

• Description: Corporate client, a beverage distributor, and its owner, also a client, were sued for failure to pay well over a million dollars.   The owner was sued as the alter-ego of the company.   We filed a cross-complaint alleging breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arguing that the supplier prevented the client from enjoying the benefits of the contract and that the client was not the alter-ego of Megawine and not responsible for its debts.   The jury returned a verdict of $333,000 on Megawine's cross-complaint agreeing with our breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing argument.    The Judge subsequently ruled in our client's favor that he was not the alter-ego of Megawine and awarded him his attorneys fees and costs of $160,000.  

                             ​