Trademarks & Practical Intellectual Property Counsel
A brand and the assets behind it are often the most valuable things a small business owns. Protecting them starts with clear ownership and clean filings.
Who the firm represents
- Business owners and founders
- Creators and independent professionals
- Small consumer brands
Common disputes and services
- Trademark clearance
- Federal trademark applications
- Office-action responses when appropriate
- Ownership and assignment agreements
- Licensing
- Contractor and employee IP provisions
- Cease-and-desist analysis
- Selected trademark, copyright, and trade-secret disputes appropriate for a focused practice
What may be at risk
- Priority and registrability of the mark
- Ownership of creative and technical assets
- Enforceability of licenses and assignments
Immediate practical steps
- 01Collect a list of marks, logos, and taglines currently in use.
- 02Identify the goods and services actually offered under each mark.
- 03Preserve first-use evidence — dated marketing, invoices, and screenshots.
- 04Compile any assignments from designers, developers, or contractors.
Evidence and documents to preserve
- Specimens of current use
- Marketing materials with dates
- Contractor and employee IP assignments
- Any prior correspondence about the mark
The firm's approach
The firm focuses on practical trademark and intellectual-property services aligned with the client's business, commercial footprint, and enforcement objectives.
Frequently asked questions
Does the firm handle patents?+
Patent prosecution requires a registered patent practitioner. The firm can refer patent matters to qualified counsel.
How long does a trademark registration take?+
USPTO timelines vary and can be substantial. The firm sets expectations at the outset of each engagement.
Trademarks & Practical Intellectual Property Counsel Insights
- Apple–OpenAI Trade-Secret Dispute: Expedited Discovery and Digital Evidence →
Apple’s discovery ruling illustrates how federal courts approach early evidence requests, confidentiality, and preservation in trade-secret litigation.
- Character.AI’s Chapter 11 Filing: Disney’s Proposed $20 Million IP License →
Character.AI’s proposed Disney transaction highlights the differences between licensing intellectual property, selling assets, and preserving a business.
- Irvine's Netlist Reaches $600 Million Patent Licensing Deal With Micron →
Netlist and Micron entered patent license and settlement agreements calling for $600 million in quarterly payments through 2031—a negotiated license, not a court award.
- Apple’s $634 Million Masimo Patent Judgment Grows to About $818.5 Million With Interest →
A federal judge added about $184.2 million in prejudgment interest to Masimo’s $634.3 million patent judgment against Apple. Here is why interest can materially increase litigation exposure.
- California AI Company Sues OpenAI Over “Astra” Trademark: What Reverse Confusion Means for Startups →
A California AI company says OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra creates reverse trademark confusion. Learn what that theory means and why startup trademark clearance matters.
- Can a Former Employee Take My Customer List and Compete With Me in California? →
A former employee may compete with you in California, but cannot misappropriate protected trade secrets. Learn when customer information may qualify and what remedies exist.
- Jury Returns Nearly $117 Million Verdict Against Joby Aero in Supplier Trade-Secret Case →
A federal jury returned a nearly $117 million verdict against Joby Aero, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Joby Aviation, Inc., in an NDA and trade-secret case. Learn what the dispute shows about protecting technical IP.
- Orange County and Mind OC Settle Be Well OC Litigation, Clearing Way for Irvine Campus Opening →
Orange County and Mind OC resolved litigation over the Be Well OC campuses, transferring facility control to the County while Mind OC retains the brand. Here are the business-law lessons.
- Federal Appeals Court Rejects AI-Training Fair Use in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS—but the Ruling Is Narrower Than It Sounds →
The Third Circuit held that ROSS Intelligence's use of Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI legal-research system was not fair use—but expressly distinguished generative AI.
- Joby–Archer Trade-Secret Ruling: What California Companies Can Protect When an Employee Leaves for a Competitor →
A federal court’s Joby-Archer ruling highlights what California businesses can protect when employees leave for competitors, including trade secrets, company files, and return-of-property obligations.
- Santa Ana Smart-Ring Fraud Verdict: Why Startups Must Be Able to Prove They Own Their Intellectual Property →
A federal smart-ring fraud conviction in Santa Ana highlights a broader startup risk: founders, investors, and buyers should verify who actually owns a company’s intellectual property.
- AI Startup Sues Perplexity Over Alleged Trade-Secret Misuse After Technology Collaboration →
A new AI trade-secret lawsuit highlights what startups should document before sharing code, training data, architecture, or technical know-how with a business partner.
- California Court Clarifies When Website Terms Cross the “Yelp Law” Line →
California businesses may protect trademarks and control website access, but they may not contract away consumers’ right to criticize the business. In Scott, Ulta’s particular terms did not cross that line.
- Ninth Circuit Rules Against Kalshi in California Tribal-Land Prediction Market Dispute →
The Ninth Circuit held two California tribes are likely to succeed in showing that Kalshi’s sports-event contracts constitute unauthorized Class III gaming when entered from tribal lands—but the case is not over.
- California Accelerates AI Oversight: What Executive Order N-9-26 Actually Requires →
California is accelerating independent AI-verification and audit oversight while studying additional frontier-model safeguards—but it has not mandated an AI “kill switch.”
- Ninth Circuit Rules on GitHub Copilot and Copyright Attribution →
AI-generated code without attribution is not automatically a DMCA § 1202 violation—but that does not mean the output is free from copyright, license, or contract risk.