Titan Law PLLC

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but in the world of intellectual property, it’s usually just a lazy attempt to hijack someone else’s hard-earned brand.  We recently handled a case involving a competing restaurant that decided the best way to launch was to “borrow” a name nearly identical to our client’s established brand.  It’s a bold strategy, albeit one that usually ends in a very expensive meeting with a process server.

When we initially reached out, the defendant was, unsurprisingly and predictably resolute.  They were standing on “principle,” adamant that no name change would occur and no compromise would be entertained.  They had their lawyers draft a ham-fisted letter in their defense, tipping their strategic hand in the process.  There is a certain brand of corporate bravado that often appears at the start of a dispute, usually fueled by the mistaken belief that a trademark is just a suggestion rather than a legally enforceable right.  We, however, prefer to let the law do the talking.

We moved swiftly, filing suit for trademark infringement, dilution, and deceptive business practices. While “infringement” covers the basic confusion, “dilution” is where things get interesting.  It’s the legal equivalent of telling a competitor they aren’t allowed to muddy the waters of a premium brand.  To top it off, we requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt their launch dead in its tracks. In legal terms, we asked the court to prevent “irreparable harm” to our client’s amassed goodwill in the marketplace; in practical terms, we were about to give the defendant a much-needed reality check.

It is truly remarkable how quickly a “principled stand” evaporates in the face of a court-ordered injunction.  Before the TRO was issued, the defendant was ready for war.  The moment the court granted the order, effectively making their planned launch illegal, their perspective underwent a sudden and dramatic evolution.  Suddenly, the name they were willing to die on a hill for wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on and the prospect of being prevented from using the name to find investors began to sink in.  They settled immediately, agreeing to abandon the infringing name entirely.

This case serves as a textbook illustration of the cost-benefit reality in litigation.  Many defendants maintain a high-voltage posture until they are forced to confront the imminent risk of business disruption and the cold, hard certainty of a judge’s signature.  Fighting for a principle is an admirable pursuit, provided you have the legal standing (and the budget) to back it up.  Without it, you’re just paying your lawyers to delay the inevitable.

In the end, the strongest principle in business litigation is often efficient, results-driven advocacy.  You don’t always need a multi-year courtroom drama to protect a brand; you just need to understand the leverage points of the law – likelihood of confusion, the speed of emergency relief, and the psychological impact of a well-timed TRO.  Sometimes, the most professional way to win is to make the opposition realize that their “bravery” is becoming an accounting liability.

We take great pride in representing businesses that refuse to let copycats dilute their goodwill.  If you’re an entrepreneur or creator looking to avoid being on either side of this scenario, we’ve laid out these brand-protection strategies in our book, The Titan Guide to Legal Issues in a Digital World. It’s a practical (and hilarious) toolkit for navigating the pitfalls of the modern marketplace.  Whether you’re building a brand or defending one, remember:  it’s much cheaper to be original than it is to be sued.

Got questions or facing a similar challenge? Reach out to Titan Law PLLC at blog@titanlawny.com.

For a PDF version of this post, click HERE.