Trademark and Trade Dress Litigation

HKW represents clients in trademark and trade dress litigation, including unfair-competition disputes under the Lanham Act and related state-law claims, for both plaintiffs and defendants. We litigate these matters in U.S. federal courts and handle the stages that often determine business outcomes: early case assessment, emergency relief (TRO/preliminary injunction), discovery, dispositive motions, trial, and post-judgment enforcement.

Lead Attorney

For matters involving trademark and trade dress litigation, clients often begin with: Steven G. Hill.

Trademark, Trade Dress, and Lanham Act Unfair Competition

Trademark cases are rarely about “marks in the abstract.” They are about how consumers encounter branding in real commerce. HKW litigates disputes involving:

• Trademark infringement and likelihood-of-confusion claims
• Trade dress disputes involving product configuration, packaging, or “look-and-feel” issues
• False advertising and related unfair competition claims
• Disputes involving descriptive marks, genericness, and secondary meaning
• Settlement agreement and consent order enforcement in repeat-player brand disputes

Where appropriate, HKW seeks early relief designed to protect business operations, particularly when the dispute turns on ongoing marketplace conduct that cannot be remedied effectively after the fact.

Online Counterfeiting, Domain Names, and Marketplace Enforcement

Modern trademark disputes often involve online marketplaces, counterfeit sellers, and domain name misuse. HKW represents clients in litigation and dispute-resolution matters involving:

• Counterfeit and knockoff goods and related online enforcement
• Misuse of marks in domain names and online advertising
• Coordinated enforcement strategies that pair litigation posture with platform-based actions, while preserving evidence and controlling risk

HKW has obtained significant results for long-time trademark clients in counterfeiting matters, including a seven-figure trademark verdict against a web counterfeiter.

Courtroom Perspective and Case Management

HKW’s attorneys have substantial experience litigating trademark cases through trial and appeal. One of HKW’s partners has also been appointed as a special master in cases alleging trademark infringement in the Northern District of Georgia, providing a practical perspective on how courts evaluate record clarity, injunction requests, and evidentiary disputes in real time.

HKW has been entrusted with disputes involving widely recognized brands, including litigation involving marks such as HOOTERS and NAPA Auto Parts.

Remedies and Business Risk

Trademark disputes often rise or fall on remedy posture. Depending on the facts and governing standards, available remedies may include injunctive relief, potential disgorgement, corrective advertising, and other monetary relief. Effective litigation planning evaluates remedy posture early, because it frequently drives settlement leverage, operational decisions, and the client’s tolerance for continued marketplace risk.

Why HKW for Trademark and Trade Dress Litigation

• Marketplace reality focus: likelihood-of-confusion analysis grounded in how consumers actually encounter the marks: channels, packaging/UI, purchaser conditions, and real-world context.
• Emergency relief capability: disciplined TRO/PI posture when timing and evidence justify it, and defense strategies to defeat overbroad injunction requests.
• Online enforcement experience: counterfeiting, domain/online advertising disputes, and coordinated marketplace enforcement strategies that preserve evidence and reduce risk.
• Practical court perspective: HKW includes partners who have served as special masters in trademark matters, informing how we frame issues for courts.
• Remedy and fee sophistication: injunction tailoring, disgorgement/corrective advertising proof, and “exceptional case” fee posture handled with an evidence-first approach.

Related IP Litigation Capabilities

HKW coordinates strategy across related IP proceedings and appeals. See also:

• Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Appeals
• Intellectual Property Litigation

Representative Trademark Matters

HI Limited Partnership v. Enjoy Manufacturing, Inc.
N.D. Ga., No. 1:12-CV-01077-AT
Represented plaintiff in trademark infringement and dilution matter enforcing the HOOTERS and Hooters & Owl Design marks against unauthorized “Team Hooters” motocross graphics products.

Growler Station, Inc. v. Foundry Growler Station, LLC
N.D. Ga., No. 4:18-cv-0232-AT
Represented plaintiff in trademark infringement/dilution dispute involving GROWLER STATION branding for beer-dispensing kiosks and growler-filling services versus a similarly named craft-beer bar concept.

Welding Services, Inc. v. Forman
N.D. Ga., No. 2:05-CV-96-WCO
Represented defendant in trademark and unfair-competition dispute between industrial maintenance providers involving alleged infringement of WSI branding and related service-mark rights; obtained summary judgment rulings.

U.S. Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Trigen Laboratories, Inc.
N.D. Ga., No. 1:10-cv-0544-WSD
Represented defendant in Lanham Act false-advertising / unfair-competition dispute involving prescription prenatal nutritional supplements and “generic equivalent” marketing allegations; successfully opposed emergency injunctive relief.

Who Will Know, LLC v. Marche, Inc.
N.D. Ga., No. 1:19-cv-04422-SDG
Represented defendant in trade dress and copyright dispute involving sorority-market jewelry products and asserted rights in product design and branding.

Strategic Questions for Trademark and Trade Dress Litigation

What usually determines leverage early in a trademark case?
Early leverage usually comes from a small set of practical questions: how strong the asserted mark is, how the marks actually appear in the marketplace, whether the parties really compete for the same customers, and whether there is credible evidence of confusion or lack of confusion. Timing also matters. A party asking for urgent relief after sitting on the issue for months starts from a weaker position. In practice, the strongest early trademark cases are built on real marketplace evidence, not abstract comparisons of words on a page.

How do courts evaluate likelihood of confusion?
Courts look at confusion in context, not in isolation. Packaging, website presentation, channels of trade, purchaser sophistication, advertising environment, and point-of-sale conditions often matter more than side-by-side word comparisons. That is why strong trademark litigation starts with how consumers encounter the brand in the real world. The most effective records use actual marketplace materials and business context to make the confusion analysis concrete.

When is a preliminary injunction realistic in a trademark case?
A preliminary injunction is realistic when the client moves promptly and the record is ready. Courts usually want to see clear evidence of current use, a concrete theory of likely confusion, proof of business harm, and a proposed order that is tailored to the problem rather than drafted as a wish list. Weak injunction applications often fail because they overreach or treat harm as self-evident. Strong ones show exactly what is happening in the market and why waiting for final judgment would not be enough.

How do descriptive marks, genericness, and secondary meaning affect the case?
These issues often decide whether the plaintiff has a protectable mark at all. For descriptive terms, the real question is whether the market understands the term as identifying source rather than merely describing a product or service. Plaintiffs often rely on length of use and advertising; defendants often focus on third-party use, industry vocabulary, and the absence of exclusive source association. These are not side issues. They often drive both merits and remedy posture from the start.

How do trade dress cases differ from ordinary trademark cases?
Trade dress cases usually involve threshold fights that word-mark cases do not. The plaintiff must define the asserted trade dress clearly enough to litigate it, show that it is nonfunctional, and prove distinctiveness. If that work is not done carefully, the case can collapse before confusion is even analyzed. In practice, trade dress cases reward disciplined definitions and punish broad descriptions of “overall look and feel” that courts cannot administer.

Do trademark surveys help or hurt?
They can do either. A sound survey can clarify consumer perception and strengthen injunction or summary-judgment posture, but a weak survey can become a distraction, inflate cost, and create cross-examination risk the case did not need. The right question is not whether a survey is theoretically available. It is whether the dispute actually requires one and whether the design can track the way consumers encounter the marks in the real marketplace. Surveys work best when they fit the case rather than trying to substitute for a weak record.

How should online counterfeiting, domains, and marketplace misuse be handled?
Online trademark disputes are highly operational. Speed matters, but so does record discipline. The first steps are usually preserving screenshots and transaction records, identifying the actors and channels involved, and deciding how litigation, platform enforcement, and any emergency relief should work together. The mistake parties make is treating online enforcement as separate from the lawsuit. In practice, the strongest results come from coordinating those steps so the evidence, the requested relief, and the business objective all point in the same direction.

What remedies matter most in trademark litigation?
Remedy posture often determines the case’s actual value. Injunctive relief usually matters most because it affects branding, sales channels, packaging, and customer-facing operations in real time. Monetary relief can be important, but disgorgement, corrective advertising, and fee requests all require disciplined proof. Strong trademark strategy asks early what result the client really needs and then builds the case toward that result, rather than waiting until the end to think seriously about remedies.