Jeffery A. Handelman

Litigation

• V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. Olé Mexican Foods, Inc., 19-cv-01904-JPB (Judge Boulee) (N.D. Ga. 2019) Lead counsel for V&V Supremo in asserting trademark infringement, false designation of origin and related state claims against defendant’s asserted defenses of genericness and fair use in case involving cheese products.
• Little Caesar Enterprisess, Inc. et al. v. Rage Administrative Marketing Services, Inc. et al., 18-cv-00132 (Judge Van Tatenhove) (E.D. Ky. 2018) Lead counsel for Little Caesar in asserting trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and related state claims against defendant's asserted counterclaims and continuous prior use defense.
• Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. and Bravo Food Service, LLC v. Ready To Go Pizza, Inc. and Ward, No. 1:14-cv-1365 (N.D. Ga. 2014).  Lead counsel for Little Caesar in trade secret misappropriation action against former managerial employee who opened a competing pizza restaurant.
• Alticor Inc. v. Nutrisystem, Inc. and Nutri/System IPHC, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-256-RHB (W.D. Mich. 2012). Lead counsel for Alticor in defending against a claim that the expansion of its global brand NUTRILITE into the weight management field would infringe and dilute Nutrisystem’s alleged prior rights in the NUTRISYSTEM mark for weight-loss goods and services. The case was successfully resolved based on a confidential settlement agreement between the parties.
• Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 99 USPQ2d 1538 (7th Cir. 2011). Lead counsel for Kimberly-Clark in a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed the impact that a utility patent can have on a claim of trademark infringement. Georgia-Pacific brought suit against Kimberly-Clark for trademark infringement based on its alleged rights in the “Quilted Diamond Design” embossed on its QUILTED NORTHERN toilet paper. Georgia-Pacific’s infringement claims were directed against Kimberly-Clark’s use of allegedly similar embossed designs appearing on the surface of its COTTONELLE ULTRA and SCOTT toilet paper. Kimberly-Clark moved for summary judgment against Georgia-Pacific on the basis that Georgia-Pacific’s asserted designs are claimed in several utility patents and are functional in that they improve the performance of toilet paper in several respects. Citing the many admissions contained in the utility patents, the Court of Appeals concluded as a matter of law that the asserted designs are functional and therefore not entitled to trademark protection. 
• Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Raytheon Co., Opposition Nos. 91167189 and 91174152 (TTAB 2011). Lead counsel for Raytheon in a dispute between premier defense contractors over rights in the term “Paveway” used for laser-guided bombs. Raytheon was the exclusive supplier of Paveway laser-guided bombs for more than 30 years. Claiming that the term had become generic, Lockheed Martin began using Paveway to identify competing laser-guided bombs after being qualified by the government as a second source. Lockheed Martin opposed Raytheon’s applications to register the Paveway mark in the U.S. and internationally. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that Paveway had become generic in the United States, whereas several foreign tribunals found Paveway to be a valid mark entitled to protection. 
• National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States of America Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States of America, Inc., 628 F.3d 837, 97 USPQ2d 1543 (7th Cir. 2010). Lead counsel for the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States of America, Inc. (“NSA”) in a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed an important aspect of the law of injunctions – the extent to which a non-party is bound by an injunction on the basis of privity. The issue arose in the context of a civil-contempt proceeding brought by the NSA, a religious organization, alleging violations of an injunction entered over 40 years ago. The injunction prohibited defendant, a dissident religious group, from infringing the marks of the NSA. The Court of Appeals held that the alleged contemnors—individuals and religious groups who were not parties to the original lawsuit—were not in privity with the defendant in the underlying action and therefore not bound by the injunction.
• Amway Corp. v. The Himalaya Drug Co., Civil Action No., 1:09-cv-835 (W.D. Mich. 2009). Lead counsel for Amway in declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that Amway's use of the phrase "Garlic Heart Care Formula" as a product descriptor in connection with its NUTRILITE dietary supplements is a fair use and does not infringe or dilute any alleged rights of adverse party. The declaratory judgment action resulted in a settlement agreement in which the parties agreed that Amway's use of the disputed phrase did not violate any rights of Himalaya in the U.S. or abroad.
• American Airlines, Inc. v. American Assist Travel Services, Inc. and Gerardo Villafane, No. 08-23476-CIV-HUCK (S.D. Fla. 2008). Lead counsel for American Airlines in trademark infringement action directed against infringement of the marks AA and AMERICAN AIRLINES. The lawsuit resulted in the entry of a Consent Judgment prohibiting defendants from engaging in further infringing activity.
• Wizard Publications, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., Civil Action No. CV-06-11-BU-SEH (D. Mont. 2006). Lead counsel for Kimberly-Clark in a copyright infringement suit that was tried to a jury. A graphic designer sold Kimberly-Clark a print for use on its GOODNITES disposable underwear product. Although the designer warranted and represented that the print was original with him and thus did not infringe the rights of others, the print in fact infringed plaintiff's rights in a copyrighted photograph. The trial focused mainly on damages: to what extent did Kimberly-Clark's use of the infringing design increase its sales of the GOODNITES product? The jury awarded the copyright holder only a small portion of the money damages that were requested.
• Tyco Healthcare Group LP and Tyco Healthcare Retail Group, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc.,Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-11809-JLT (D. Mass. 2006). Lead counsel for Kimberly-Clark in an action filed by Tyco Healthcare alleging infringement of the trademark FLEXI-WINGS, a mark licensed by Tyco Healthcare to Proctor & Gamble for use on ALWAYS sanitary pads. Tyco Healthcare sought a preliminary injunction against Kimberly-Clark's use of the mark COMFORT FLEX in conjunction with the term "Wings" in connection with KOTEX sanitary pads. The court found that "Wings" is a generic term that refers to the protruding tabs on the side of a sanitary pad. Finding that Kimberly-Clark's use of "COMFORT FLEX Wings" was protected under the fair use doctrine and also did not give rise to any likelihood of confusion, the court denied Tyco Healthcare's motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Crosstex International, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,04 CV 5313 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). Lead counsel for Kimberly-Clark in a declaratory judgment action in which plaintiff Crosstex sought a declaration that it was not infringing Kimberly-Clark's trademark rights in the color orange for disposable medical face masks. Kimberly-Clark filed counterclaims asserting trademark infringement, trademark dilution and related claims. The case was successfully resolved based on a settlement agreement pursuant to which Crosstex acknowledged the validity of Kimberly-Clark's asserted trademark rights and discontinued its use of the color orange in association with medical face masks.
• Roder Zeltsysteme und Service AG v. Roder and Roder Hts Hocker America, LLC,Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-0193 (S.D. Ind. 2004). Lead counsel for defendant Heinz Roder, a German citizen, in a case involving the client's right to use his own surname as a trademark and trade name. Mr. Roder sold his company "Roder Zeltsysteme und Service AG" along with the right to use the name "Roder" in connection with the business. Mr. Roder also agreed to a five-year non-compete period. Shortly after the non-compete period expired, Mr. Roder began operating a competing business under the name "Roder Hts Hocker America, LLC." The purchaser of the original business sued for trademark infringement, claiming that, with the sale of his company, Mr. Roder relinquished his right to use RODER as a trademark and trade name. The dispute was successfully resolved pursuant to a settlement agreement permitting the client to use his full name "Heinz Roder" in accordance with specified usage guidelines.
• Discover Financial Services, Inc. v. Mary Catherine Taylor, No. 01-CH-19239 (Cir. Ct. Ill. 2001). Lead counsel for Mary Catherine Taylor, a former employee of Discover Financial Services, in a trade secret case in which Discover Financial sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Ms. Taylor from working on an identity-theft protection product offered by G.E. Financial Assurance Partnership Marketing Group. Ms. Taylor had access to Discover Financial's confidential and proprietary information while serving as the marketing manager for a competing product offered to holders of Discover Credit cards. Discover Financial claimed that Ms. Taylor would "inevitably disclose" its trade secrets if allowed to work in her new position for G.E. Financial Assurance. In ruling on Discover Financial's motion for a preliminary injunction, the court found that plaintiff was not likely to succeed in showing that Ms. Taylor had disclosed or used any of plaintiff's trade secrets or that she invevitably would do so during the course of her employment with G.E. Financial Assurance.
• Jacob Zimmerman v.National Association of Realtors, Cancellation Nos. 32,360 and 40,141 (TTAB 2001). Lead counsel for National Association of Realtors ("NAR") in a case that upheld the validity of the collective service marks REALTOR and REALTORS. The TTAB rejected petitioner's genericness claim, holding that the primary significance of the REALTOR mark is that of a proprietary term indicating membership in NAR. A consumer survey submitted on behalf of NAR showed that over 80% of real estate agents and brokers recognized that the term REALTOR does not refer to all real estate agents, but rather refers only to those who are members of NAR or one of its local or state associations. The TTAB observed that real estate professionals "should be permitted to continue making knowledgeable and informed decisions based on the source-indicating functions of these marks."
• RDV Sports, Inc. v. Logo Connections, Inc., No. 6:99-CV-1346-Orl-22B (M.D. Fla. 1999). Lead counsel for RDV Sports, Inc., the owner of the Orlando Magic of the National Basketball Association and the Orlando Solar Bears of the International Hockey League, in an action involving the client's right to use the name, mark, logo and mascot of the Orlando Solar Bears professional ice hockey team. The adverse party Logo Connections asserted trademark infringement, copyright infringement and related claims, seeking an injunction and money damages against RDV Sports. The case was successfully resolved, with Logo Connections acknowledging that the client's use of the mark ORLANDO SOLAR BEARS and design did not infringe any of the asserted trademark or copyright rights.
• Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Brian Seifert individually and d/b/a Information Technologies, No. 1:99-CV-614 (W.D. Mich. 1999). Lead counsel for Quixtar Investments, Inc., a related company of Amway Corporation, in an action involving claims of fraud and unfair competition relating to the QUIXTAR mark. As Quixtar's multimillion-dollar Internet business was being launched, defendant Mr. Seifert claimed to have prior rights in the QUIXTAR mark seeking a settlement in the amount of $2.5 million. Quixtar responded by asserting claims of fraud and unfair competition against defendant. The court entered judgment in favor of Quixtar, declaring that Quixtar's use of the QUIXTAR mark does not violate any rights of defendant, and permanently enjoining defendant from using the QUIXTAR mark or any confusingly similar mark.
• Fort James Corporation v. Kimberly-Clark Tissue Company, No. 98-C-7834 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Lead counsel for Kimberly-Clark in an action brought by Fort James alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and design patent infringement based on Kimberly-Clark's use of an embossed design appearing on the surface of bathroom tissue. Kimberly-Clark filed counterclaims against Fort James and petitioned to cancel the trademark registrations covering the embossed designs asserted in the lawsuit. The case was successfully resolved based on a confidential licensing agreement reached between the parties.
• Arleen Freeman v. National Association of Realtors, Cancellation Nos. 27,885 and 28,047 (TTAB 1998). Lead counsel for National Association of Realtors ("NAR"), the nation's largest professional association, in a cancellation proceeding involving the defense of licensee estoppel. The petitioner, Ms. Freeman, had been a member of NAR for over twenty years when she terminated her affiliation and created a competing real estate association. Petitioner then filed petitions seeking to cancel NAR's registrations covering the REALTOR and REALTORS marks on genericness grounds. The TTAB held that, because Freeman was a member of NAR for many years and was authorized as a licensee to use the REALTOR marks, Freeman was precluded by the doctrine of licensee estoppel from challenging the validity of those marks. Dismissing on that ground, the Board did not reach the merits of the genericness claim.
• Yamaha Corporation of America v. Everett Piano Company, Opposition No. 108,787 (TTAB 1997). Lead counsel for applicant Wrightwood Enterprises in an abandonment case involving the trademark EVERETT for pianos. The Board held that opposer Yamaha Corporation of America, a leader in the piano market, abandoned the mark EVERETT for pianos several years after its acquisition of the Everett Piano Company. Yamaha therefore lacked superior rights in the mark and could not prevail on its claim of priority.
• Sloppy Joe's International, Inc. v. Kentucky Textiles, Inc., No. 96-10043-CIV-KING (S.D. Fla. 1996). Lead counsel for Kentucky Textiles, Inc., a clothing manufacturer, in a declaratory judgment action filed by Sloppy Joe's International, Inc., the owner of the historic "Sloppy Joe's" restaurant and bar in Key West, Florida. The main issue in the case concerned the territorial extent of the right of each party to use the mark SLOPPY JOE'S for apparel products. Kentucky Textiles owned an incontestable federal registration that was granted in 1985 covering the mark SLOPPY JOES for apparel. Sloppy Joe's International had been promoting its restaurant and bar in Key West, Florida by selling promotional SLOPPY JOE'S apparel products since long prior to the issuance of Kentucky Textiles' federal registration. Contending that Sloppy Joe's International was not entitled to use the SLOPPY JOE'S mark in connection with apparel sold outside the limited area of Key West, Kentucky Textiles objected when Sloppy Joe's International expanded its business and began selling SLOPPY JOE'S apparel at new franchised locations around the country. The case was successfully resolved pursuant to an agreement under which the client granted Sloppy Joe's International a license to use the SLOPPY JOE'S mark on clothing products sold outside Key West, Florida.
• Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Virginia, Inc., No. 93-2076, 43 F.3d 922, 33 USPQ 2d 1481 (4th Cir. 1995). Lead counsel for Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, a national restaurant chain, in a trademark infringement action against a local restaurant business using the LONE STAR mark in Virginia and Maryland. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment and issuance of a permanent injunction in favor of Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. As the senior owner of a federal trademark registration, Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon was awarded priority over the local junior user. Moreover, the Court found that the LONE STAR mark had "achieved a high level of recognition in the restaurant field" and that issuance of an injunction "would serve the public interest by preventing future consumers from being misled."
• Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., Opposition No. 98,459, (TTAB 1995). Lead counsel for United Air Lines, Inc. in a case involving the question whether the term E TICKET functions as a valid mark for computerized reservation and ticketing of transportation services. The TTAB held that no single air carrier is entitled to exclusive rights in the E TICKET designation; rather, the term E TICKET is generic and should be available for all carriers to use in association with electronic-ticketing services.
• Bally Schuhfabriken AG and Bally, Inc. v. Bally Manufacturing Corporation, No. 92-C-0312 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Represented Swiss-based Bally Schuhfabriken, owner of the trademark BALLY for prestigious apparel products and accessories, in infringement action against Bally Manufacturing's use of the mark BALLY'S in connection with low-cost apparel items sold in its casino hotels. The case was successfully resolved based on a settlement agreement that placed restrictions on defendant's use of the challenged mark.
• Vitaline Corporation v. General Mills, Inc., No. 89-1397, 891 F. 2d 273, 13 USPQ 2d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Lead counsel for General Mills, Inc. in a cancellation proceeding involving the issue of claim preclusion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's grant of summary judgment in favor of General Mills. The court held that the claim asserted against General Mills in the cancellation proceeding could have been brought in a prior proceeding between the parties and therefore was barred.
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Lakeside Products Company, No. 89-C-7171 (N.D. Ill. 1989). Represented The Coca-Cola Company in an action against Lakeside's sale of "can-wrap" products designed to be placed around cans of beer in order to conceal the beer label from view and make them look like cans of COCA-COLA soft drinks. Each can wrap was red-and-white in color and displayed the designation CACO-CALO in the familiar COCA-COLA Script, together with the Dynamic Ribbon design. The court permanently enjoined the sale of the infringing can wraps, stating that the COCA-COLA and Dynamic Ribbon design trademarks "have become among the most famous trademarks in the world."
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Alma-Leo U.S.A., Inc., No. 89-C-6045, 719 F. Supp. 725, 12 USPQ2d 1487 (N.D. Ill. 1989). Represented The Coca-Cola Company in an action alleging trademark dilution and related claims based on defendant's marketing and sale of "Magic Powder," a bubble gum product sold in a plastic container resembling a Coca-Cola bottle. The district court granted The Coca-Cola Company's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding that the Coca-Cola bottle design "represents the archetypical distinctive mark." The court found likely injury to The Coca-Cola Company's business reputation, noting that the "Magic Powder" bubble gum consisted of a white powder that looked like cocaine.
• Jockey International, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., Opposition No. 81,508 (TTAB 1989). Lead counsel for Jockey International, Inc. in a case in which Jockey asserted its prior rights in the mark ELANCE for underwear against applicant's requested registration of the mark ELAAN (stylized) for neckties. Because Jockey's registration covered ELANCE in typed capital letters, the TTAB considered all reasonable manners in which the mark could be depicted, including a script form similar to that used by applicant. Finding confusion between the marks to be likely, the TTAB sustained the opposition.
• General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Company, No. 87-5190, 824 F. 2d 622, 3 USPQ 2d 1442 (8th Cir. 1987). Represented General Mills in an action in which Kellogg Company sought a preliminary injunction against General Mills' use of the mark OATMEAL RAISIN CRISP for a new breakfast cereal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction motion, finding that General Mills' use of OATMEAL RAISIN CRISP did not infringe Kellogg's rights in the mark APPLE RAISIN CRISP, also for breakfast cereal. The court noted that the differences in overall packaging precluded any likelihood of confusion: "Acknowledging that there are some similarities between the marks, the district court nevertheless found, after comparing the respective color schemes, lettering styles, and box designs, that the two marks likely are different enough to avoid consumer confusion. In properly focusing on the total effect conveyed by both marks, the district court did not clearly err in finding no confusing similarity between them."
• Jockey International, Inc. v. Donnie T. Butler, Opposition No. 70,575 (TTAB 1984). Represented Jockey International, Inc. in an opposition against registration of a "Jockey on Horseback" design mark for clothing products. The TTAB ruled in Jockey's favor based on the confusingly similar commercial impressions projected by the marks, noting that the record "establishes beyond any doubt that the JOCKEY word and design marks are famous trademarks in the field of clothing."

Federal Court Cases

• Wiscon Corp. d/b/a Caputo Foods v. Caputo Brothers Creamery, LLC, No. 20-cv-3191 (N.D. Ill. 2020)
• V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. Olé Mexican Foods, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-1904 (N.D. Ga. 2019)
• Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Rage Administrative and Marketing Services, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00132 (E.D. Ky. 2018)
• Marcal Mfg., LLC, d/b/a Soundview Paper Company, LLC v. Essendant Co., No. 2:17-cv-02426 (D. NJ. 2017)
• Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Soundview Paper Holdings LLC, No. 1:15-cv-01182 (N.D. Ga. 2015)
• Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. and LC Trademarks, Inc. v. Piara Pizza LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-6943 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
• Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. and Bravo Food Service, LLC v. Ready To Go Pizza, Inc. and Ward, No. 1:14-cv-1365 (N.D. Ga. 2014)
• Flowers Bakeries Brands, LLC v. Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc. and Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 7:13-CV-138 (HL) (M.D. Ga. 2013)
• Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Jai Mundi, Inc. d/b/a Virgin Vapor, No. 1:13-cv-8339 (N.D. IL 2013)
• Alticor Inc. v. Nutrisystem, Inc. and Nutri/System IPHC, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-256-RHB (W.D. Mich. 2012)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Alvarez d/b/a American Eagle Taxi Lines, No. 1:12-cv-3364-TCB (N.D. Ga. 2012)
• Ecore International, Inc. v. Downey and Pliteq, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-2729 (E.D. Pa. 2012)
• Eevzdrop, LLC v. Evzdrop, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-8207 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
• Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 647 F.3d 723, 99 USPQ2d 1538 (7th Cir. 2011)
• Ecore International, Inc. v. Downey, CSR Industries, Inc. and Pliteq, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-CV-6843 (E.D. Pa. 2011)
• Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. and LC Trademarks, Inc. v. Rooyakker, A&T Holdings, Inc., Rooyakker and A&R Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 11-13474 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
• National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States of America Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States of America, Inc., 628 F.3d 837, 97 USPQ2d 1543 (7th Cir. 2010)
• Amway Corp. v. The Himalaya Drug Co., Civil Action No., 1:09-cv-835 (W.D. Mich. 2009)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. American Assist Travel Services, Inc. and GerardoVillafane, No. 08-23476-CIV-HUCK (S.D. Fla. 2008)
• Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 07 CV 03121 (N.D. Ill. 2007)
• Wizard Publications, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., Civil Action No. CV-06-11-BU-SEH (D. Mont. 2006)
• Tyco Healthcare Group LP and Tyco Healthcare Retail Group, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-11809-JLT (D. Mass. 2006)
• V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. and Hawmell, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-01518 (N.D. Ill. 2005)
• Wisconsin Cheese Group, Inc. v. V&V Supremo Foods, Inc., Civil Action No. 07-C-0219-C (W.D. Wisc. 2007), appeal from final TTAB decision, V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. Wisconsin Cheese Group, Inc., Cancellation No. 92044301 (TTAB 2005)
• Crosstex International, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 04 CV 5313 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)
• Roder Zeltsysteme und Service AG v. Roder and Roder Hts Hocker America, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-0193 (S.D. Ind. 2004)
• Viridian Packaging Solutions, LLC v. Zila, Inc. and Zila Swab Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 03C-3285 (N.D. Ill. 2003)
• Cynthia Tripp Kampf and Tripp Design, Ltd. v. FAO Schwarz, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-8086 (N.D. Ill. 2003)
• Proquest Information & Learning Company v. Proquest Limited, No. 03-CV-71407 (E.D. Mich. 2003)
• National Association of Realtors v. Gregory Tyll, No. 1:02-CV-8261 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
• Sage Products, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, No. 02-C-126 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
• V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. Castro Cheese Company, Inc., No. 02-C-8573 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
• Zila Swab Technologies, Inc. v. Van Dyke and GMP Products, LLC, Civil Action No. 01 C 8729 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
• Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., Civil Action No. 1:01-CV-3684 (N.D. Ga. 2001)
• Discover Financial Services, Inc. v. Mary Catherine Taylor, No. 01-CH-19239 (Cir. Ct. Ill. 2001)
• Pro-Line International, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, No. 3:01-CV-0965-G (N.D. Tx. 2001)
• Lumenos, Inc. v. ESC Medical Systems, Ltd. and ESC Medical Systems, Inc., No. 01-10781-REK (Dist. Ma. 2001)
• Safe-T Products, Inc., Classroom Products, Inc., and Extra Measures, Inc. v. Learning Resources, Inc. and A.Daigger & Co., Inc., No. 01-C-9498 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
• Zila Swab Technologies, Inc. v. Darrell W. Van Dyke and CMP Products, LLC, n/k/a Viridian Packaging Solutions, LLC, No. 01-C-8729 (N.D. Ill. 2001)
• Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. American Threshold Industries, Inc., No. 1:00-CV-1446 (N.D. Ga. 2000)
• Amway Corporation v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., No. 1:00-CV-203 (W.D. Mich. 2000)
• Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Solitary Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:00-CV-200 (W.D. Mich. 2000)
• Jennifer Berman v. Big Dog USA, Inc., No. 00-CV-4303 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
• Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Motto Enterprise and Eric Motto, No. 1:02-CV-54 (W.D. Mich. 2000)
• RDV Sports, Inc. v. Logo Connections, Inc., No. 6:99-CV-1346-Orl-22B (M.D. Fla. 1999)
• Ty, Inc., v. Treasure Yesterday, Inc., No. 4:99-CV-25-DJS (E.D. Mo. 1999)
• Amway Corporation v. Pharmanex, Inc. and Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:99-CV-155 (W.D. Mich. 1999)
• Signature Financial/Marketing, Inc. v. Jason Wiseman and Holden Corporation d/b/a efox.com, No. 99-CV-2499 (N.D. Ill. 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. and Sprintcom, Inc. v. SBBS Software and Consulting, Inc.and Scott L. Gordon, No. 99-1022-CV-W-6 (W.D. Mo. 1999)
• Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Michael Brown and Xamo Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:99-CV-891 (W.D. Mich. 1999)
• Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Brent M. Leger a/k/a Brent L., individually and d/b/a B-C Media, No. 1:99-CV-680 (W.D. Mich. 1999)
• Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Brent Reeves, No. 1:99-CV-677 (W.D. Mich. 1999)
• Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Thomas Ford, individually and d/b/a Residualincomes, No. 1:99-CV-676 (W.D. Mich. 1999)
• Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Brian Seifert individually and d/b/a Information Technologies, No. 1:99-CV-614 (W.D. Mich. 1999)
• Quixtar, Inc. v. Brian Smith, No. 1:99-CV-426 (W.D. Mich. 1999)
• Finazzle Corp. USA v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 1:98-CV-3217-ODE (N.D. Ga. 1998)
• Ty Inc. v. Randy J. Thyberg d/b/a Trading Cards International, No. CV 98-7001RWSL (C.D. Calif. 1998)
• Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Kam Toys & Novelty Manufacturing Ltd., No. 98-C-7247 (N.D. Ill. 1998)
• Fort James Corporation v. Kimberly-Clark Tissue Company, No. 98-C-7834 (N.D. Ill. 1998)
• Ty Inc. v. Enor Corporation, No. 98-C-6314 (N.D. Ill. 1998)
• Long John Silver’s, Inc. v. Hester Industries, Inc., No. 97-409 (E.D. Ky. 1997)
• Spree.com Corporation v. Sprint Communications Company L.P. and Sprint Communications Corporation, No. 97-CV-5456 (CW) (E.D. Pa. 1997)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Websprint Communications, Inc., No. C-97-20699-JW (N.D. Calif. 1997)
• Emerson Electric Co. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 4:97-CV-00206-MLM (E.D. Mo. 1997)
• Amway Corporation v. Euro-Flex, Inc., No. 1:97-CV-696 (W.D. Mich. 1997)
• Signature Financial/Marketing, Inc. v. Shop at Home, Inc., No. 97-C-3649 (N.D. Ill. 1997)
• Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc., Nos. 94-8700, 95-8656 and 95-8767, 122 F. 3d 1379, 44 USPQ 2d 1217 (11th Cir. 1997)
• Sloppy Joe’s International, Inc. v. Kentucky Textiles, Inc., No. 96-10043-CIV-KING (S.D. Fla. 1996)
• Amway Corporation v. Cosmetech International, Inc., No. 95-1488 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
• Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Virginia, Inc., No. 93-2076, 43 F. 3d 922, 33 USPQ 2d 1481 (4th Cir. 1995)
• Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., No. 92-CIV-4593 (RPP) (S.D. N.Y. 1992)
• Bally Schuhfabriken AG and Bally, Inc. v. Bally Manufacturing Corporation, No. 92-C-0312 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
• Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., No. 91-C-0532 (N.D. Ill 1991)
• Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp., No. 89 CIV 2807 (CBM), 748 F. Supp.1522, 18 USPQ 2d 1437 (S.D. N.Y. 1991)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Jack Piotrowski d/b/a Mr. Neon, No. 90-C-6752 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Pat McQuire, No. 90-C-6751 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Custom Time Company, No. 90-C-6735 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Bob Dittmann, No. 90-C-6734 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Quinn Enterprises and Ross Quinn, No. 90-C-6733 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Hofstra, McArthur & Belgrave, No. 90-C-6732 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Steve Yadon, No. 90-C-6731 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. 1800’s Company and Rod Haynes, No. 90-C-6730 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Chrome Plating and Craig Bierman, No. 90-C-6728 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Jim Dougan, R & A Screen Printing, Inc., Ray J. Doneluck and Augustine R. Smarrelli, No. 90-C-6725 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Bill Pilger and Linda Pilger, No. 90-C-6724 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Daniel A. Cooney d/b/a Cooney Island Antiques, No. 90-C-6723 (N.D. Ill. 1990)
• Vitaline Corporation v. General Mills, Inc., No. 89-1397, 891 F. 2d 273, 13 USPQ 2d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Lakeside Products Company, No. 89-C-7171 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
• The Coca-Cola Company v.Alma-Leo U.S.A., Inc., No. 89-C-6045, 719 F.Supp. 725, 12 USPQ2d 1487 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
• Schutt Athletic Sales Company and Athletic Helmet, Inc. v. Riddell, Inc., No. 89-C-5560 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
• General Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Company, No. 87-5190, 824 F. 2d 622, 3 USPQ 2d 1442 (8th Cir. 1987)
• Tree Traven Products, Inc. v. ConAgra, Inc., No. 86-156 (CMW), 640 F.Supp. 1263, 231 USPQ 260 (Dist. Del. 1986)
• Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company v. Storck USA L.P., No. 86-C-5264 (N.D. Ill. 1986)
• A.J. Canfield Company v. Vess Beverages, Inc., No. 85-C-4368, 796 F. 2d 903, 230 USPQ 441 (7th Cir. 1986)
• Lowe’s Inc. v. Mid-Florida Mining Company and Eagle Super Saver Store #520, No. 85-0384 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
• Pizzazz Pizza and Restaurant and John J. Spiccia and Marie B. Spiccia v. Taco Bell, Inc. and Pepsico, Inc., No. C85-2543 (N.D. Ohio 1985)
• Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Fastec Industrial Corporation, No. 85-C-9083 (N.D. Ill. 1985)
• Extel Corporation, v. Crown Zellerbach Corporation and Eczel Corporation, No. 85-C-4467 (N.D. Ill. 1985)
• Tempco Electric Heater Corporation v. Omega Engineering, Inc., No. 85-3068, 819 F. 2d 746, 2 USPQ2d 1930 (7th Cir. 1985)
• Dana Corporation v. Racal Electronics Public Limited Company and Racal-Dana Instruments, Inc., No. 85-C-428 (N.D. Ill. 1985)
• Midwest Express Airlines, Inc. v. Midway Airlines, Inc. and Midway Express, Inc., No. 84-C-8503 (N.D. Ill. 1984)

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) Cases

• LC Trademarks, Inc. v. Fitza Pizza, LLC, Opposition No. 91-233,491 (TTAB 2017)
• Alticor Inc. v. Amron, Opposition No. 91-230,952 (TTAB 2016)
• Schermerhorn v. National Association of Realtors, Cancellation No. 92061031 (TTAB 2015)
• Alticor Inc. v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Opposition No. 85-962,940 (TTAB 2013)
• National Association of Realtors v. Nelis, Opposition No. 91-209,482 (TTAB 2013)
• Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. v. SIS Resources, Ltd., Opposition No. 91-213,286 (TTAB 2013)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. American Road Warriors, LLC, Opposition No. 91-203,536 (TTAB 2012)
• Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Alticor Inc., Opposition No. 91-205,519 (TTAB 2012) (consolidated proceedings)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Kenton County Airport Board, Opposition No. 91203392 (TTAB 2012)
• Alticor Inc. v. Fizzy, LLC, Cancellation No. 92054472 (TTAB 2011)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Pioneer Financial Services, Inc., Opposition No. 91197160 (TTAB 2010)
• WageWorks, Inc. v. Take Care Health Systems, LLC, Opposition No. 91167509 (TTAB 2010)
• Alticor Inc. v. G&H Nutrition LLC, Opposition No. 91194688 (TTAB 2010)
• Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, Cancellation No. 92051438 (TTAB 2009)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Applied Card Systems, Inc., Opposition No. 91188811 (TTAB 2009)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Consumer Benefit Services, Inc., Opposition No. 91188607 (TTAB 2009)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Youbet.com, Inc., Opposition No. 91187983 (TTAB 2008)
• National Association of Realtors v. Korpa, Opposition No. 91187313 (TTAB 2008)
• Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. Keystone Scent Company, Inc., Opposition No. 91184693 (TTAB 2008)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Holiday Systems International of Nevada, Opposition No. 91188056 (TTAB 2008)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. American Apparel, Inc., Opposition No. 91184941 (TTAB 2008)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. American Apparel, Inc., Opposition No. 91184480 (TTAB 2008)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. FIA Card Services, Opposition No. 91183943 (TTAB 2008)
• FCH Enterprises, Inc. v. Douvris, Cancellation No. 92047334 (TTAB 2007)
• MHM Resources, Inc. v. Take Care Health Systems, LLC, Opposition No. 91167509 (TTAB 2005)
• National Association of Realtors v. The Realteers LLC, Opposition No. 91183346 (TTAB 2008)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Affinion Publishing, Inc., Cancellation No. 92047076 (TTAB 2007)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick Bank, Opposition No. 91177970 (TTAB 2007)
• Oneworld Alliance LLC v. One World Incentives, Inc., Opposition No. 91180901 (TTAB 2007)
• V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. Corporative Brandings and Investments, S.A. de C.V., Opposition No. 91176139 (TTAB 2007)
• FCH Enterprises, Inc. v. Douvris, Cancellation No. 92047334 (TTAB 2007)
• Fuel Freedom International, LLC v. Alticor Inc., Cancellation No. 92047543 (TTAB 2007)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Affinion Publishing, Inc., Opposition No. 91170154 (TTAB 2006)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. DVS Shoe Co., Inc., Opposition No. 91170862 (TTAB 2006)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Motivation Advantage, Inc., Opposition No. 91170098 (TTAB 2006)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Motivation Advantage, Inc., Cancellation No. 92045355 (TTAB 2006)
• Reno Air Racing Association, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., Cancellation No. 92045922 (TTAB 2006)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Visual Data Systems, Inc., Opposition No. 91171635 (TTAB 2006)
• V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. Wisconsin Cheese Group, Inc., Cancellation No. 92044301 (TTAB 2005)
• V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. Fromageries F. Paul-Renard, Opposition No. 91167084 (TTAB 2005)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. Affinitas Corp., Opposition No. 91165978 (TTAB 2005)
• American Airlines, Inc. v. American Media Operations, Inc., Opposition No. 91167582 (TTAB 2005)
• Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Raytheon Co., Opposition Nos. 91167189 and 91174152 (TTAB 2005) (consolidated)
• CP Acquisition, LLC v. Madison Restaurant Acquisition Corp., Concurrent Use No. 94002130 (TTAB 2005)
• Jockey International, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., Opposition No. 91161521 (TTAB 2004)
• Alticor Inc. v. Body Wise International, Inc., Opposition No. 91161155 (TTAB 2004)
• National Association of Realtors v. Solio, Opposition No. 118,735 (TTAB 2004)
• Novartis AG v. Alticor Inc., Opposition No. 91157433 (TTAB 2003)
• Safeskin Corp. v. Quantum Labs, Inc., Opposition No. 91151020 (TTAB 2002)
• National Association of Realtors v. Realtorcountry.com, Opposition No. 91125020 (TTAB 2001)
• Ansell Protective Products, Inc. v. Safeskin Corp., Opposition No. 91119666 (TTAB 2000)
• Royal Paper Coverting, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Cancellation No. 42,514 (TTAB 2003)
• Safeskin Corporation v. Quantum Labs, Inc., Opposition No. 151,020 (TTAB 2002)
• President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Herstellungs-und Vertriebsgesellschaft, Richter & Hoffmann and Harvard Dental - GmbH, Opposition No. 150,854 (TTAB 2002)
• Alticor Inc. v. Ives Health Company, Opposition No. 154,469 (TTAB 2002)
• Jacob Zimmerman v. National Association of Realtors, Cancellation Nos. 32,360 and 40,141 (TTAB 2001)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. International Telcom Ltd., Cancellation No. 31,980 (TTAB 2001)
• Jay B. Lipe, d/b/a/ Emerge Marketing v. Emerge, Inc., Cancellation No. 32,033 (TTAB 2001)
• Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Avalanche Publishing, Inc., Opposition No. 121,201 (TTAB 2000)
• Star Alliance v. United Air Lines, Inc., Opposition No. 120,963 (TTAB 2000)
• Sprint Communication Company L.P. v. Mattel, Inc., Opposition No. 120,117 (TTAB 2000)
• Ansell Protective Products, Inc. v. Safeskin Corporation, Opposition No. 119,666 (TTAB 2000)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Atari Games Corporation, Opposition No. 119,089 (TTAB 2000)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. The Southern Company, Opposition No. 117,093 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. David Lamm, Opposition No. 116,455 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Enron Energy Services, Inc., Opposition No. 116,374 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. David Lamm, Opposition 116,191 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Motive Communications, Inc., Opposition No. 116,151 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. GHR Systems, Inc., Opposition No. 115,641 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. The Southern Company, Opposition No. 115,377 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Bandai, Opposition No. 115,038 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. GTE Service Corporation, Opposition No. 115,036 (TTAB 1999)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. GTE Service Corporation, Opposition No. 114,857 (TTAB 1999)
• Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. KingKraft, Inc., Opposition No. 113.818 (TTAB 1999)
• Cord Moving and Storage Co. v. The File Room, Inc., Concurrent Use No. 94001163 (TTAB 1999)
• Arleen Freeman v. National Association of Realtors, Cancellation Nos. 27,885 and 28,047 (TTAB 1998)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Mediashare Corporation, Opposition No. 110,062 (TTAB 1998)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Equinox International Corporation, Opposition No. 109,745 (TTAB 1998)
• Yamaha Corporation of America v.Everett Piano Company, Opposition No. 108,787 (TTAB 1997)
• Kimberly-Clark Tissue Company v. Disposable Products Company, Inc., Opposition No. 108,535 (TTAB 1997)
• Amway Corporation v. Cartilife Products, Inc., Opposition No. 107,911 (TTAB 1997)
• The Scott Fetzer Company v. Kimberly-Clark Tissue Company, Cancellation No. 26,510, et al. (TTAB 1997)
• Amway Corporation v. AmeriChem Distributors, Inc., Opposition No. 107,048 (TTAB 1997)
• Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Communications TeleSystems International, Opposition No. 104,790 (TTAB 1997)
• Shred-It, Inc. v. Shred-It Franchise Inc., Cancellation No. 25,259 (TTAB 1996)
• Cablevision Systems Corporation v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Opposition No. 102,332 (TTAB 1996)
• Amway Corporation v. Howe Laboratories, Inc., Opposition No. 101,524 (TTAB 1996)
• Amway Corporation v. Horizon-West Marketing Corp., Opposition No. 101,294 (TTAB 1996)
• Amway Corporation v. Lancome Parfums Et Beaute & CIE, Opposition No. 100,675 (TTAB 1995)
• Amway Corporation v. Craig Keeland d/b/a The Craig Keeland Children’s Trust and Graham & Buffet Partners, Inc., Opposition No. 98,877 (TTAB 1995)
• Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn, Inc. and Zehnder’s of Frankenmuth, Inc. v. Frankenmuth Fundraising Corporation, Opposition Nos. 98,857, 101,699 and 104,554 (TTAB 1995)
• Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., Opposition No. 98,459 (TTAB 1995)
• Amway Corporation v. Melaleuca, Inc., Opposition No. 98,346 (TTAB 1995)
• Kenneth E. Hough v. Motels of America, Inc., Cancellation No. 23,694 (TTAB 1994)
• The Cherry Corporation v. ASTI “Cherry Computer”, Opposition No. 95, 489 (TTAB 1994)
• Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Cedar Hills Ribs, Inc., Opposition No. 94,671 (TTAB 1994)
• Kimberly-Clark Tissue Company v. The Scott Fetzer Company, Opposition No. 94,387 (TTAB 1994)
• Amway Corporation v. Lucky, Ltd., Opposition No. 93,831 (TTAB 1994)
• Nabisco, Inc. v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, Cancellation No. 21,187 (TTAB 1992)
• The File Room, Inc. v. Cord Moving and Storage Co., Cancellation No. 20,448 (TTAB 1992)
• Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Opposition No. 86,446 (TTAB 1991)
• Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., Opposition No. 84,046 (TTAB 1990)
• The Quaker Oaks Company v. Curtice-Burns Foods, Inc., Cancellation No. 18,878 (TTAB 1990)
• Borden, Inc. v. Quality Chekd Dairy Products Association, Opposition Nos. 81, 702 and 82,021 (TTAB 1989)
• Jockey International, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., Opposition No. 81,508 (TTAB 1989)
• Abbott Laboratories v. Igen, Inc., Opposition No. 80,904 (TTAB 1989)
• The Quaker Oaks Company v. Curtice-Burns Foods, Inc., Cancellation No. 17,792 (TTAB 1989)
• Maytag Corporation v. Alternative Pioneering Systems, Inc., Opposition No. 79,915 (TTAB 1989)
• Quantum Management, Inc. v. Quantum Resources Corporation, Opposition No. 78,466 (TTAB 1988)
• United Foods, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., Cancellation No. 17,245 (TTAB 1988)
• Jockey International, Inc. v. John V. Brooks, Opposition No. 78,121 (TTAB 1988)
• Signaturecard, Inc. v. ITT Life Insurance Corporation, Cancellation No. 16,268 (TTAB 1987)
• Curtiss-Burns, Inc. v. Allied Foods, Inc., Opposition No. 76,725 (TTAB 1987)
• Centel Corporation v. Centex Telemanagement Inc., Opposition No. 76,110 (TTAB 1987)
• Saks & Company v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Opposition No. 76,004 (TTAB 1987)
• Telecommunications Service Bureau, Inc. v. TSB International, Inc., Opposition No. 75,647 (TTAB 1987)
• Sealy, Inc. v. USA Bedding Corp., Opposition No. 75,182 (TTAB 1986)
• Jockey International, Inc. v. David L. Keiter, Opposition No. 72,542 (TTAB 1985)
• J.I. Case Company v. F.L. Industries, Inc., Opposition No. 70,765 (TTAB 1985)
• Jockey International, Inc. v. Dutch Valley Mills, Inc., Opposition No. 70,577 (TTAB 1984)
• Jockey International, Inc. v. Donnie T. Butler, Opposition No. 70,575 (TTAB 1984)
• ConAgra, Inc. v. Jose Luis Saavedra, Cancellation No. 13,949 (TTAB 1983)
• Jockey International, Inc. v. Sirco International Corp., Opposition No. 66,747 (TTAB 1982)

• World Trademark Review 1000: National Silver Band, Enforcement & Litigation, 2016-2021
• World Trademark Review 1000: Illinois Gold Band, Enforcement & Litigation, 2019-2021; Silver Band, Enforcement & Litigation, 2018; Bronze Band, Enforcement & Litigation, 2013-2017
• World Trademark Review: Global Leaders, 2020 - 2024
• Managing Intellectual Property: IP Star, 2018-2020
• Super Lawyers, Illinois Intellectual Property Litigation, 2005-2017
• The Best Lawyers in America: Trademark Law, 2013, 2015-2021
• Leading Lawyers Network: Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer, 2004-2005, 2007, 2009-2012, 2014
• Who's Who Legal USA: Trademarks, 2006, 2008