Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark on or in connection with goods and services in a manner likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about their source. It can damage your brand's reputation, result in financial losses, and halt business operations. Learn about the differences between trademark infringement and dilution or contact TCP Law to assess a potential infringement situation.

A successful trademark infringement claim requires proving three elements: a valid and enforceable trademark; a mark used by the defendant that is confusingly similar to the plaintiff's mark; and use of that mark in connection with the same or similar goods and services likely to cause consumer confusion. For common law marks, the claimant must also demonstrate the scope of their unregistered rights. Contact TCP Law to evaluate the strength of your claim.

Likelihood of confusion (LOC) is the central standard in trademark infringement — it occurs when consumers are likely to mistake the source of goods or services offered under similar marks. New York federal courts apply the eight Polaroid factors, including the strength of the mark, similarity of the marks, proximity and relatedness of goods and services, evidence of actual confusion, and consumer sophistication. Contact TCP Law to assess your LOC argument.

Trademark dilution harms a trademark owner's reputation or diminishes the unique association of a famous mark — without requiring consumer confusion. There are two types: dilution by blurring (unauthorized use impairs a famous mark's distinctiveness) and dilution by tarnishment (offensive unauthorized use harms the mark's reputation). Unlike infringement, dilution applies only to famous marks. Read about trademark infringement vs. dilution or contact TCP Law to evaluate your claim.

Successful trademark infringement remedies include: an injunction stopping further use of the infringing mark; compensation for damages caused by infringement; seizure of infringing products; attorney's fees in appropriate cases; and treble damages where infringement was willful. Federal registration significantly expands the remedies available. The earlier the enforcement action is taken, the stronger your position. Contact TCP Law to discuss your enforcement options or send a cease and desist letter.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) handles three types of proceedings: appeals of USPTO examining attorney rejections during trademark prosecution; oppositions filed by third parties against marks published in the Official Gazette; and cancellation petitions against existing registrations. TTAB proceedings involve formal procedural rules and evidence requirements. Read about responding to trademark final rejections or contact TCP Law for TTAB representation.

Yes — infringement claims can be based on common law trademark rights arising from actual use in commerce, even without USPTO registration. However, common law claims carry a higher evidentiary burden and are geographically limited to areas of active use. Federal registration creates a presumption of nationwide ownership and significantly strengthens enforcement. Learn about common law vs. registered trademark rights and contact TCP Law to evaluate your position.

Do not ignore it. Review the asserted mark's validity, assess whether your mark is actually confusingly similar under the likelihood of confusion standard, and evaluate available defenses. Options include compliance, negotiated resolution, a legal rebuttal, or challenging mark validity. TCP Law assists clients on both sides of trademark disputes. If you've received a cease and desist letter, contact TCP Law immediately to protect your position.

Bad faith — evidence that an infringing mark was adopted with knowledge of the senior user's mark — is one of the eight Polaroid factors New York federal courts apply in trademark infringement cases. While not required to prove infringement, bad faith strengthens the plaintiff's position and can affect available remedies. Courts are less sympathetic to defendants who deliberately mimicked an established mark. Contact TCP Law to discuss the strength of your infringement case.

Yes — exact copying is not required. The legal standard is likelihood of confusion, not identity. A phonetically similar name, visually similar logo, or conceptually parallel slogan used on related goods or services can constitute infringement. New York federal courts evaluate this through the eight Polaroid factors. If a competitor is using a similar mark, contact TCP Law to assess whether it rises to trademark infringement.