Creatives prefer a collaborative approach, but disputes undeniably can arise. When that happens, familiarity with market norms and industry nuances can make all the difference in obtaining a favorable result. Litigation should always be a last resort, but when it becomes necessary for protecting our clients’ rights, our firm doesn’t shy away from doing so.
Because intellectual property rights involve a balance of both private and public interests, we have represented both plaintiffs and defendants, as the situation may warrant. Below are representative matters and clients, as well as a sampling of court rulings that are in the public record.
Representative Matters
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Anti-counterfeiting
- Audit rights and accountings
- Band separation
- Breach of contract
- Copyright infringement
- Defamation
- Demand letters
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
- Domain name disputes
- False designation of origin
- False endorsement and false sponsorship
- False light
- First Amendment freedom of speech issues
- Invasion of privacy
- Right of publicity (NIL)
- Tortious interference
- Trademark infringement
- Unfair competition
Representative Clients
- Consumer product manufacturers
- Documentary filmmakers
- Digital marketing agencies
- E-commerce merchants
- Film producers
- Influencers
- Musicians and bands
- Night club event promoters
- Nonprofits and tax-exempt organizations
- Novelists
- Photographers
- Professional consultants
- Public relations
- Reality TV talent
- Radio personalities
- Record labels
- Recording studios
- Videographers
Sampling of court rulings resulting from our involvement (asterisks [*] denote our clients):
- Seven Oaks Millwork Inc. v. *Royal Foam US, LLC et al., 1:19-cv-06234, 2019 WL 6827641 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2019) (dismissing case based on lack of personal jurisdiction)
- Seven Oaks Millwork, Inc. v. *Royal Foam US, LLC, 483 F. Supp. 3d 1192 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (dismissing copyright infringement case due to lack of substantial similarity)
- *Oppenheimer v. GEI Consultants, Inc., 1:21-cv-01967, 2021 WL 8314495 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2021) (denying motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations for copyright infringement)
- *Oppenheimer v. eXp Realty LLC, 2:21-cv-01304-RAJ-BAT, 2023 WL 1805568 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023) (permitting addition of new copyright infringement and DMCA violation allegations based on facts discovered after amendment deadline)
- *Wang v. P’ships et al., 1:21-CV-01664, 2022 WL 2463043 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2022) (denying dismissal of trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and similar claims)
- MFB Fertility, Inc. v. *Action Care Mobile Veterinary Clinic, LLC, 730 F. Supp. 3d 740 (N.D. Ill. 2024) (dismissing copyright infringement claim and denying motion to dismiss counterclaims for DMCA misrepresentation, tortious interference, and defamation)
- MFB Fertility, Inc. v. *Action Care Mobile Veterinary Clinic, LLC, 1:23-CV-03854 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2025) (granting motion for reconsideration, resulting in a reinstatement of a previously dismissed trademark cancellation counterclaim)
- *Smith v. Anderson et al., No. 2019-CH-7357 (Cook Cnty. Ill. Ch. Div. Apr. 20, 2020) (unpublished order) (denying motion to dismiss right of publicity claims)