Pollard PLLC is a litigation boutique focused on competition law. The firm and its attorneys have extensive experience litigating a variety of unfair competition matters, including various trademark claims and other claims under the Lanham Act.
The firm prosecutes and defends against claims for Lanham Act violations, including trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, false advertising, and cybersquatting.
Pollard PLLC consists of seasoned litigators who are adept at attaining favorable outcomes at trial. In cases where our client’s needs are not accomplished at trial, however, the firm readily turns to the appellate courts.
In addition to providing another venue to fight for our clients, the appellate process allows Pollard PLLC to shape the law itself. In the fight against unfair competition, the appellate courts enable the firm to affect actual change, not only for our own clients, but for everyone in the marketplace. Every appellate victory the firm achieves for our clients is actually a victory for fair competition and all working people.
Although aimed at the same outcome as the trial process, the appellate process presents different challenges; challenges that Pollard PLLC is specifically built for. The firm is designed to accommodate the rigors of challenging trial court decisions and is composed of knowledgeable attorneys that are enthusiastic about the opportunity to develop the law.
Trials focus primarily on facts and whether those facts satisfy sets of legal requirements; appeals, however, focus much more heavily on the law itself. Having concentrated on competition law and intellectual property litigation throughout the firm’s existence, Pollard PLLC is especially knowledgeable, especially experienced, and especially able to craft the legal arguments necessary to succeed at the appellate level.
Our clients rest assured that a trial’s end does not mean the end of our vigorous advocacy. A trial’s end, in fact, marks the beginning of a whole new type of advocacy; one characterized, not by depositions and discovery, but by skilled and masterful legal argumentation.
Because Pollard PLLC handles both the trial and appellate levels, the firm skillfully tries cases such that they will be best positioned in the event an appeal is necessary. Our attorneys operate carefully in litigation to ensure that all appealable issues are preserved and that the record contains all the information needed at the appellate level. The firm safeguards our clients’ interests by securing the tools for success at the appellate level long before an appeal begins.
Pollard PLLC has litigated numerous complex Lanham Act claims, including:
ESP Systems, LLC v. Nightingale Nurses, LLC, Case No. 16-81263 (Southern District of Florida, 2017) (prosecuting Lanham Act claims for false advertising in the medical staffing industry)
Racing Sports Concepts, LLC v. Dickinson et al., Case No. 13-20428 (Southern District of Florida, 2013) (prosecuting Lanham Act claims for false advertising and trademark infringement in the aftermarket auto parts industry)
In the News, Inc. v. Controneo, Case No. 15-CA-009602 (Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit – Hillsborough County, 2016) (defending against Cybersquatting claims in litigation between rival media companies)
At Pollard PLLC, we pride ourselves on the appellate successes we have fought for. Having secured appellate victories in both state and federal courts, the firm is familiar with the appellate processes and continues to ensure that our clients’ cases are heard by the highest court necessary. Below are examples of the firm’s success in state and federal appellate courts:
Silva, et al. v. Nightingale Nurses, LLC, et al., Case No. 4D17-0032 (Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals, 2017) (securing an initial temporary stay and then a stay of injunction and contempt orders pending appeal in case involving nurse staffing agency rivals)
Evans v. Generic Solution Engineering LLC, Case No. 5D15-578 (Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals, 2015) (appealing the trial court’s decision to enter preliminary injunction to Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals and securing the reversal of that decision)
Moon v. Medical Technology Associates, Case No. No. 14–11155 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014) (appealing the trial court’s entry of a preliminary injunction in favor of Medical Technology Associates. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Florida, where the injunction was defeated again)