Trademark Infringement Litigation Attorney

A trademark dispute usually turns on one practical question a court can decide: is the accused use likely to confuse consumers about the source of the goods or services? How a court answers that controls whether it will grant an injunction, award damages, or push the parties toward settlement, and it drives the cost and timing of the whole case. A trademark infringement litigation attorney builds the case around that question — assembling the evidence of confusion, the reach of the asserted rights, and the harm to the brand. Keyhani LLC litigates trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act, for brand owners enforcing their marks and for companies defending against an infringement or dilution claim.

Trademark Litigation Under the Lanham Act

Federal trademark litigation is governed principally by the Lanham Act, and a single dispute often combines more than one theory of liability. The core claim for a registered mark arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, which states that anyone who, without consent, uses in commerce a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services is liable when that use is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.

The Act reaches beyond registered marks. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), a party can sue for false designation of origin and unfair competition — the theory that protects unregistered marks and trade dress and that also supports false advertising claims. A separate cause of action under § 1125(c) reaches dilution of a famous mark. Choosing which theory to plead, and how they interact, is an early strategic judgment that shapes the evidence, the discovery, and the value of the case.

The contours of these claims are shaped by the courts as much as by the statute. The Supreme Court has decided which marks the Act can reach and on what terms — for example, in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017), the Court held that the Lanham Act’s bar on registering marks that “may disparage” persons violated the First Amendment. A registrability question like that rarely decides an infringement case, but it illustrates why trademark litigation demands counsel who track how the statute is actually applied, not just its text.

Proving Likelihood of Confusion

Likelihood of confusion is the heart of most trademark infringement litigation. The question is not whether two marks look alike in isolation, but whether an ordinary consumer, encountering the accused mark in the marketplace, is likely to be confused about who stands behind the product. Federal courts answer that question with a multi-factor test, and each circuit maintains its own test.

In the Second Circuit, the classic formulation comes from Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961), where Judge Friendly set out factors that courts still weigh: the strength of the owner’s mark, the similarity of the marks, the competitive proximity of the products, the likelihood the owner will bridge the gap into the accused party’s market, evidence of actual confusion, the accused party’s good faith in adopting the mark, the quality of the accused party’s product, and the sophistication of the relevant consumers. No factor controls, and courts weigh them against the record as a whole.

Actual-confusion evidence is persuasive but not required; a well-supported survey, overlapping trade channels, and a strong, distinctive mark can carry the analysis even without documented consumer mix-ups. On the defense side, the same factors are pressure-tested — a weak or descriptive mark, distinct products, sophisticated purchasers, and independent good-faith adoption all cut against a finding of confusion.

Trademark Dilution Claims for Famous Marks

Dilution is a separate theory that protects the most well-known brands even where confusion is unlikely. The dilution provision, § 1125(c), states that the owner of a mark that is “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source” may pursue relief against later uses that dilute the mark’s distinctiveness or reputation. The statute recognizes two forms: dilution by blurring, which impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark, and dilution by tarnishment, which harms its reputation.

Dilution is demanding to prove. The fame requirement is a high bar — niche or regional recognition is not enough — and the analysis differs from confusion in kind, not just degree. For an owner, a dilution claim can add real value where the mark is genuinely famous and the accused use trades on that recognition. For an accused party, the fame requirement, the statutory fair-use exclusions, and the noncommercial-use carve-outs are often the strongest lines of defense.

Trade Dress and Unfair Competition

The same statute, § 1125(a), also protects trade dress — the overall look and feel of a product or its packaging — and supports unfair competition and false advertising claims. Trade dress cases turn on how distinctive the design is and whether it functions as a source identifier. In Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992), the Supreme Court held that inherently distinctive trade dress is protectable under § 1125(a) without proof of secondary meaning.

The Court later drew a line for product design. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000), it held that product-design trade dress is never inherently distinctive and can be protected only on a showing of secondary meaning — proof that consumers have come to associate the design with a single source. That distinction between packaging and product design is often decisive, and functionality remains a complete defense to any trade dress claim.

Unfair competition and false advertising claims travel alongside infringement in many disputes. A false or misleading statement in commercial advertising about the nature, characteristics, or origin of goods can support a § 1125(a) claim independent of any mark, and comparative advertising campaigns are a frequent flashpoint. Framing these related claims correctly at the outset keeps the case coherent through trial.

Injunctions, Damages, and Other Remedies

The remedy an owner can realistically obtain often drives litigation strategy. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1116, federal courts have power to grant injunctions according to the principles of equity to prevent violation of a mark owner’s rights, and a 2020 amendment provides a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm once a violation is found for a permanent injunction, or once likelihood of success is shown for preliminary relief. That presumption matters most at the emergency-relief stage.

Where delay would cause harm that money cannot repair, an owner may seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction (PI) — an order restricting conduct before final judgment, often on an expedited record. A TRO can issue on a clear showing of immediate and irreparable injury, and the movant is generally required to post security. Because these applications move quickly, the evidence and the proposed order must be precise; an overbroad request invites denial.

On monetary relief, 15 U.S.C. § 1117 states that a prevailing owner may recover the accused party’s profits, the owner’s own damages, and the costs of the action, subject to the court’s discretion to adjust an award to reach a just result. In exceptional cases, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party, and counterfeit-mark cases carry enhanced remedies, including treble damages and statutory damages. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1118, a court may also order that infringing labels, packaging, and the means of making them be delivered up and destroyed. Assessing which of these remedies is realistic on the facts is central to valuing any trademark matter.

Defending a Trademark Infringement Claim

A trademark case reads differently from the defense chair, and a company accused of infringement has substantive tools well beyond denying confusion. The defense may test the strength and validity of the asserted mark, argue that the term is descriptive or generic, invoke classic or nominative fair use, raise functionality against a trade dress claim, or challenge whether the marks and products are close enough for confusion at all. A company that receives a cease-and-desist letter may also consider a declaratory judgment (DJ) action to resolve the dispute in a chosen forum rather than waiting to be sued.

The same likelihood-of-confusion factors an owner marshals into an injunction application are the factors a defendant dismantles point by point, and knowing how each argument lands before a judge is what separates a persuasive filing from a boilerplate one.

Issue	Owner / Plaintiff	Accused Party / Defense
Strength of the mark	Show the mark is distinctive, well-recognized, and consistently used and enforced.	Argue the mark is descriptive, weak, or diluted by third-party use in the field.
Likelihood of confusion	Marshal survey evidence, actual confusion, and overlapping trade channels.	Show distinct products, sophisticated purchasers, and good-faith independent adoption.
Fair use and validity	Establish protectable, non-functional rights and rebut fair-use defenses.	Raise descriptive or nominative fair use, functionality, and genericness.
Remedy and scope	Seek a narrow injunction plus profits, damages, and fees where supported.	Oppose overbroad relief and contest the basis for any monetary award.

Trademark Matters We Handle

Both Sides: Enforcement and Defense

Trademark disputes are rarely one-sided, and the same facts support different stories depending on which brand asserts rights. An owner works to protect distinctiveness and stop confusing uses without overclaiming its mark; an accused party works to keep a valid competitor from being enjoined out of a legitimate market on a thin confusion theory. Litigating from both chairs makes the firm’s preparation for either side more disciplined.

Where We Litigate Trademark Cases

The Lanham Act is a federal statute, and trademark infringement claims are litigated in the federal district courts, with unfair competition counts frequently pleaded alongside them. Keyhani LLC litigates in federal courts nationwide and serves U.S. and international clients, appearing with local counsel where a court requires it. The firm evaluates where a matter belongs and whether emergency relief is realistic on the record.

The firm’s regional focus includes the District of New Jersey, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Northern Virginia, and Washington, DC — active venues for brand disputes, but the firm handles trademark matters wherever the dispute and the evidence require.

Why Keyhani LLC

Keyhani LLC is a litigation-led intellectual property boutique that also handles IP consulting, licensing disputes, transactional work, and IP mediation and arbitration. In trademark matters, the firm’s work centers on the decisions that actually move a case: how to frame confusion or dilution, whether an injunction is justified, how to value the remedy, and how to defend a legitimate business against an overbroad claim.

Founder Darius Keyhani has more than 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation and has served as lead counsel in 80+ federal cases, with federal appellate experience and admission to the U.S. Supreme Court bar. Frances Stephenson, a member of the firm admitted in New York, focuses on intellectual property litigation. Together they handle enforcement and defense across the full arc of a trademark dispute.

Trademark Litigation FAQ