Emily Kappers

Counsel | She/Her/Hers

Overview

Emily Kappers is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Chicago office and a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. She represents national and international companies in trademark counseling and litigation matters. Her practice covers trademark, trade dress, false advertising, copyright, and unfair competition.

Emily advises clients on the clearance, prosecution, and enforcement of global trademark portfolios. She also advises on trademark protection in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions, including China and the European Union. For each client, Emily develops a deep understanding of their offerings, with a focus on understanding her clients’ current and future business goals and target markets. She uses this knowledge to create tailored prosecution and enforcement strategies that secure and build clients’ brands.

Emily’s litigation practice focuses on Lanham Act disputes. Recent matters include nationwide federal district court cases in the technology, electrical, and hospitality industries. In these and similar matters, Emily pulls from her extensive counseling experience to provide trademark strategy and insight. Her experience also includes representing clients in Trademark Trial and Appeal Board oppositions and cancellation actions and handling domain name disputes under the Uniform Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Outside of the office, Emily is an active member of Chicago’s legal and civic communities. Emily serves on the executive board of the Richard Linn American Inn of Court as the CLE chair. Additionally, she chairs committees for Chicago Women in Intellectual Property (ChiWIP), which aims to connect women in the field of intellectual property law. A former violinist, Emily serves on the executive board of Ravinia Associates, an organization that provides underserved Chicago communities access to music and music education and supports the next generation of classical musicians.

Career & Education

|
    • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, B.A., communication, english, 2011
    • DePaul University, J.D., Certificate in Intellectual Property, cum Laude, 2015
    • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, B.A., communication, english, 2011
    • DePaul University, J.D., Certificate in Intellectual Property, cum Laude, 2015
    • Illinois
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
    • Illinois
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • International Trademark Association, Emerging Issues Committee
    • Chicago Women in IP, Chair of the Annual Dinner Committee
    • Ravinia Associates Board, Sponsorship Chair and Executive Board Member

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • International Trademark Association, Emerging Issues Committee
    • Chicago Women in IP, Chair of the Annual Dinner Committee
    • Ravinia Associates Board, Sponsorship Chair and Executive Board Member

Emily's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.15.24

Can False Claims of Patent Protection Land You in the False Advertising Dawg(s) House?

The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim that a product is protected by patents when it is not may constitute false advertising. Defendants in this case, Dawgs Inc., accused the makers of Crocs of using the terms “patented,” ‘proprietary,” and “exclusive” in its advertising in a manner that misled consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its own products and the products of its competitors. Specifically, Dawgs alleged that Crocs made promotional statements that a patent covers its Croslite shoe material, that Croslite has numerous tangible benefits found in all of Crocs’ shoe products and that, because Croslite is “patented,” others’ products lack these same benefits. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)....

Recognition

  • Legal 500 United States, Trademarks: Non-Contentious (including Prosecution, Portfolio Management and Licensing), Recommended Lawyer, 2023
  • Best Lawyers: Rising Star, 2021-2023
  • Illinois Super Lawyers: Rising Stars, 2019 – 2023
  • Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars: Illinois Rising Star, 2020 – 2022
  • Best Lawyers: Women in Law "Ones to Watch" for IP, 2022

Emily's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.15.24

Can False Claims of Patent Protection Land You in the False Advertising Dawg(s) House?

The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim that a product is protected by patents when it is not may constitute false advertising. Defendants in this case, Dawgs Inc., accused the makers of Crocs of using the terms “patented,” ‘proprietary,” and “exclusive” in its advertising in a manner that misled consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its own products and the products of its competitors. Specifically, Dawgs alleged that Crocs made promotional statements that a patent covers its Croslite shoe material, that Croslite has numerous tangible benefits found in all of Crocs’ shoe products and that, because Croslite is “patented,” others’ products lack these same benefits. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)....

|

Emily's Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.15.24

Can False Claims of Patent Protection Land You in the False Advertising Dawg(s) House?

The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim that a product is protected by patents when it is not may constitute false advertising. Defendants in this case, Dawgs Inc., accused the makers of Crocs of using the terms “patented,” ‘proprietary,” and “exclusive” in its advertising in a manner that misled consumers about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its own products and the products of its competitors. Specifically, Dawgs alleged that Crocs made promotional statements that a patent covers its Croslite shoe material, that Croslite has numerous tangible benefits found in all of Crocs’ shoe products and that, because Croslite is “patented,” others’ products lack these same benefits. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 2022-2160, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)....