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’s experience with intellectual property litigation, specifically suits arising under the Lanham Act, puts the firm at a distinct advantage when resolving our clients’ trademark infringement, false advertising, and cybersquatting claims because every area of law that the firm focuses on deals heavily with seeking the entry or denial of injunctive relief.

Having cut our teeth litigating non-compete, non-solicitation, and trade secret claims, Pollard PLLC entered the realm of Lanham Act litigation in a position of strength. The firm has successfully argued in favor of and against countless injunctions in both state and federal courts. As accomplished trial and appellate attorneys, Pollard PLLC has found success at every level of litigation and continues as an elite boutique in the intellectual property arena.

Injunctions

One of the most powerful weapons in any attorney’s or court’s arsenal is the injunction. By ordering injunctive relief, whether it be temporary or permanent, courts have the power to either force or prohibit a party’s action. This remedy is, typically, uncommon; in the context of Lanham Act violations, however, courts are broadly empowered to utilize injunctions.

According to the Lanham Act, courts are free to grant injunctions “upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable” to protect the rights of a trademark holder and to prevent trademark infringement, false advertising, or cybersquatting. These injunctions depend on the facts of the case at hand but often include orders that:

• Goods or counterfeit marks involved in Lanham Act violations be seized or destroyed;
• Domain names involved in cybersquatting be forfeited, cancelled, or transferred;
• The commercial use of any word, term, or symbol that might confuse consumers be ceased;
• Deceptive practices such as false or misleading advertisements be stopped.

In cases where a client faces immanent harm to one of their business interests, Pollard PLLC takes advantage of preliminary injunctions to put an immediate end to the infringing or unfair behavior. A preliminary injunction is a very powerful tool in Lanham Act litigation because it often sets the tone for the remaining litigation. When handled properly, a preliminary injunction can obviate the need for a full trial altogether. To attain a preliminary injunction, a litigant must make four showings:

1. The likelihood of success on the merits is substantial;
2. The injury that will be suffered unless the court issues the injunction is irreparable;
3. The likely injury to the plaintiff outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction might cause the defendant;
4. The injunction would not offend public policy or conflict with public interest.

Pollard PLLC has successfully argued in favor of and against injunctions in litigations over Lanham Act violations, restrictive covenants, and trade secrets. The firm has developed skills and strategies for various situations, for both seeking and defeating injunctions. By focusing on competition law, Pollard PLLC is continuously at the forefront of intellectual property litigation and especially able to accomplish our clients’ goals.

Representative Matters

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)

As litigation over Lanham Act violations and restrictive covenants often depends on seeking or defeating claims for injunctive relief, Pollard PLLC is especially skilled in dealing with injunctions. The following are examples of our success litigating injunctive relief issues:

Federated National Holding Company v. Prygelski, Case No. 17-004342 (Florida’s Seventeenth Judicial Circuit – Broward County, 2017) (defending FEDNAT’s ex-CFO and defeating company’s claim for preliminary injunction, thereby allowing our client to continue working at his desired location)

Lucky Cousins Trucking v. QC Energy Resources, et al, Case No. 16-00866 (Middle District of Florida, 2017) (defeating oil and gas transportation conglomerate’s initial claim for preliminary injunction and subsequent motion for reconsideration)

Key Lime Interactive, LLC v. Galvao, Case No. 16-002911 (Florida’s Seventeenth Judicial Circuit – Broward County, 2016) (defeating Key Lime Interactive’s motion for injunctive relief, which sought to prohibit our client from working as an unpaid intern, thereby protecting his career and livelihood)

IDMWorks LLC v. Pophaly, Case No. 16-20627 (Southern District of Florida, 2016) (defeating claim for preliminary injunction by corporate network security company. This decision was seminal in its area of law and has been subsequently relied on by various courts, including that in Lucky Cousins Trucking v. QC Energy Resources)

Vinculum, Inc. v. Goli Technologies, LLC, Case No. 15-06333 (Pennsylvania’s Seventh Judicial District – Buck County, 2015) (beating Vinculum’s attempt to attain a preliminary injunction against Goli Technologies in Pennsylvania technology staffing dispute)

Moon v. Medical Technology Associates, Case No. 8:13–cv–02782–EAK–EAJ (Middle District of Florida, 2015) (successfully appealing the entry of a preliminary injunction and, subsequently, succeeding in arguing against preliminary injunction on remand)

Generic Solution Engineering, LLC v. Evans et. al., Case No. 14-31540 (Florida’s Seventh Judicial Circuit – Volusia County, 2015) (appealing trial court’s decision to grant injunction to Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals, who vacated the injunction)