Whether you are being accused of trademark infringement or need to take action against an infringer, the attorneys at The Kinder Law Group will aggressively defend and enforce your rights. Many general practice firms will claim to handle everything from employment litigation and real property disputes to trademark infringement matters.  The reality, however, is that trademark law is one of the most complex areas of the law.  With a multi-factor test to determine infringement, and often times the need for expert witnesses and market surveys, you simply must have a firm that is experienced in handling trademark infringement matters.

It is also important to choose a law firm that has actual trial experience.  Before you select an attorney, ask them if they have ever actually tried a trademark infringement case before a jury – odds are they probably haven’t.  That is because the vast majority of cases settle and there are few attorneys who have actually taken a case all the way through to trial before a jury.  By contrast, The Kinder Law Group has extensive experience in handling trademark infringement litigation matters for our clients. We have successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants alike in federal district courts throughout the United States, as well as before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 

As part of the litigation process, we prepare and respond to cease and desist letters, initiate and respond to federal court complaints, use federal court discovery tools by issuing and responding to interrogatories, request production of documents, as well as take and defend depositions.  Using advanced mediation training, The Kinder Law Group knows how to position your case for settlement and avoid costly litigation through successful mediation and negotiated resolutions.  However, if settlement cannot be achieved and trial is necessary, The Kinder Law Group also has the trial experience needed to prosecute and defend a case all the way before a jury. 

Representative Cases

(Client Denoted in Blue)

Gary Christopher v. Ryan Grepper
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Infringing trademark registrations cancelled by Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Description: Cancellation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for COOLEST coolers trademark registrations based upon client’s earlier trademark rights.

Structural Plastics v. Sam Pievac Company
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Settled pursuant to a confidential win-win settlement agreement.
Description: Trademark infringement lawsuit involving dispute over the rights to SPC.

Nova-Ortho Medical v. Farinpour
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement; Cybersquatting
Outcome: Settled with domain name being transferred back to client and client paying only the $10k for work performed.
Description: Client’s former IT person demanded nearly $40k (when only $10k worth of work had been performed) and hijacked client’s domain name as ransom.  Initiated lawsuit in U.S. District Court for trademark infringement and cybersquatting.

Tom Penny and Flip Skateboards, Inc. v. Absolute International PTY LTD
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Settled pursuant to confidential agreement.
Description: Prosecution of trademark infringement action against PENNY skateboards in Central District of California Federal Court.

Metasoft v. Global Operations and Development
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Outcome: Settled Forcing Plaintiff to Pay All Costs and Attorney Fees.
Description: Defended action by Canadian company against Orange County based non-profit corporation.

New Enchantment v. The Journey Spa & Wellness Center
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Settled pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.
Description: Defended a trademark infringement action involving the JOURNEY SPA trademark.

Venvest Ballard v. Clockwork Home Services
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Settled pursuant to confidential settlement agreement.
Description: Federal declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of trademark, non-compete and unfair competition.

Clutch Masters v. eClutchMaster
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Opposition granted, judgment for client, infringing application cancelled by Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Description: Opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for a trademark application directed to a mark confusingly similar to my client’s trademark.

RRLH, Inc. v. Golden Rain Foundation, Inc.
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Settled pursuant to confidential settlement agreement.
Description: Defense of trademark infringement claims concerning LEISURE WORLD trademark; prosecution of counterclaims. Settled pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement after substantial preparation and just a few days before trial scheduled to begin.

Prolab Nutrition, Inc. v. NBTY, Inc. and Met-Rx Substrate Technology, Inc.
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Settled pursuant to confidential settlement agreement.
Description: Prosecution of declaratory judgment action for non-infringement concerning MET-RX trademark; defense of counterclaims. Resolved via confidential settlement agreement.

Military Order of the Purple Heart v. Purple Heart Veterans Rehabilitation Services
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Outcome: Settled pursuant to confidential settlement agreement.
Description: Defended action for trademark infringement concerning PURPLE HEART trademark; prosecuted counterclaims for intentional interference with actual and prospective economic advantage.