Kelley Drye


Contact Information

Christie Grymes Thompson
Practice Chair

Washington, D.C.
Phone: (202) 342-8633
Fax: (202) 342-8451

View Attorney List

Lanham Act Litigation

Follow Us on Facebook

Keep up with the latest advertising law developments by "Liking" our practice page on Facebook.

Follow Us on Facebook

Kelley Drye has one of the nation’s largest and most effective advertising litigation practices. The firm’s advertising lawyers have successfully brought or defended a range of false or comparative advertising cases in recent years under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits false or misleading claims in national advertising. Our team of skilled litigators has experience representing clients competing in a range of industries. Your legal matters benefit from the strategic insights and innovative approaches we have put into play for famous brands across industries.

Representative Experience

Kelley Drye has extensive experience in comparative advertising and trademark cases under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Within the past few years, we have successfully brought forward or defended advertising and trademark cases including the following representative matters:

  • Represented a leading jewelry retailer in a Lanham Act suit challenging a competitor’s claims for the performance of its diamonds.  Negotiated a settlement prior to trial.

  • On behalf of a maker of automotive products, successfully negotiated the settlement of a Lanham Act challenge regarding comparative advertising claims for an automotive product.

  • Successfully defended a beverage producer in a Lanham Act false advertising case that went to trial in the Central District Court of California.  On behalf of our client, we counter-alleged false advertising by its competitor, which we were prepared to litigate, but this became unnecessary when, after nine trial days, the jury completely exonerated our client of the false advertising of which it was accused.

  • Assisted an advertiser in securing a $125 million settlement of its false advertising and antitrust claims against a competitor in the District of Minnesota. The case over in-store marketing promotions was settled after the first day of trial.

  • Defended the maker of dietary supplements in an unfair competition lawsuit brought in the U.S. Eastern District Court of New York. The jury unanimously found that our client’s statement, used on wholesalers’ and retailers’ store brand packaging for joint care products, inviting consumers to compare the products to a competitor’s products, is not false and misleading and does not violate Section 43 of the Lanham Act.

  • Prosecuted claims in the Eastern District of New York for Lanham Act violations and unfair competition arising out of defendant's marketing of a toy product improperly based upon client's Laser ChallengeTM system. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was granted after an evidentiary hearing and the case was subsequently favorably settled.

  • Defended a toy manufacturer in a trade dress and copyright infringement action. Case was dismissed by the plaintiff following early discovery and motion practice.

  • Represented the producer of rums and spirits in a protracted dispute involving courts in three circuits, two federal agencies, and the World Trade Organization, involving the establishment of the company's rights to a trademark in the United States.

  • Defended the manufacturer of packaging machinery against patent infringement claims. A global settlement was negotiated after Markman briefing and argument.

  • Served as litigation counsel in a closely-watched search engine advertising case. Case settled after successful oppositions to both the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act counterclaims and a subsequent motion for summary judgment.

  • Defended a leading apparel company in trade dress infringement claims arising from pocket stitching designs.

  • Challenged comparative superiority claims made by an appliance manufacturer for its steam vacuum products.

  • Defended a distributor of motor scooters from claims of reverse passing off under the Lanham Act. Case was dismissed with prejudice after denial of plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion.

  • On behalf of a telecommunications provider, obtained preliminary injunction in federal court in Atlanta enjoining the defendant’s claim regarding the speed of dial up service.

  • Challenged implied superiority and establishment claims made by competitor wireless communications company in connection with new product launch.

  • Defended a toy maker in an 18-day bench trial in the Eastern District of New York in which an inventor claimed violations of the Lanham Act. The Court ruled in our client’s favor.

  • Obtained summary judgment dismissal of Lanham Act and state law claims arising out of alleged misappropriation of plaintiff’s concept for a toy product.
Print PDF

May 2014

Making the Mark

Los Angeles Lawyer


March 6, 2015

Irreparable Harm in Lanham Act False Advertising Cases: A New Legal Frontier

American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law

Additional Resources