“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” ~Theodore Roosevelt
Representing Gyro-Trac Corporation in patent infringement matter involving US Patent No. 8,167,225, U.S. Patent No. 8,893,997 in United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Representing Frankenstein Mills, Inc. in Trademark Cancellation regarding their ARETHA FRANKENSTEIN trademark application.
Successfully represented Jovo, Inc in a trademark infringement case in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta division, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Successfully represented Peak Revenue Group, LLC in a trademark infringement case in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia division, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Successfully represented FiberSource, Inc in a patent infringement case in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville division, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Successfully represented Able South Carolina in a trademark infringement case in State of South Carolina in the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Successfully represented Mr. Tint, Inc, in a trademark infringement case in State of South Carolina in the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Representing Smith Corporation in patent infringement matter involving US Patent No. 7,398,999 in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Spartanburg division.
Representing Marine Pro Custom Boatworks in Trademark Cancellation regarding their MARINE PRO trademark application, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Successfully represented Sportsman Boats Manufacturing in patent infringement matter in United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers division involving U.S. Patent No. 9,446,818. Obtained dismissal with prejudice on behalf of defendant.
Successfully represented The Sweetery Inc in a trademark infringement case in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville division, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Representing Bull’s Eye Brands in Trademark Opposition regarding their SMACKERS trademark application, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Representing Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC., and Kimlor Mills, Inc. in a copyright infringement case in United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, resulting in mutually agreed settlement between the parties.
Representing Anthony Dash in copyright infringement case in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia division against boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and World Wrestling Entertainment. The plaintiff alleges that Mr. Mayweather used a version of his song for entrance music to a WWE pay-per-view event called Wrestlemania 24.
Successfully represented Ocean Moody Creations, LLC. in a Trademark Opposition proceeding against Crocs, Inc. and Ocean Minded Inc., resulting in partial cancellation of U.S. Registration No. 2,282,012 for OCEAN MINDED, owned by Ocean Minded Inc., a company owned by Crocs, Inc.
Argued a case in the South Carolina Supreme Court regarding the question of whether South Carolina recognizes a person's "right of publicity." This right, in summary, allows a person to prevent another from using his name or likeness for monetary gain, without permission or compensation. The court held that South Carolina does recognize this right, and further, that the right has a post-mortem component.
