After a 10‑day federal jury trial in Las Vegas Nevada, our client prevailed on every claim—trademark infringement, business interference, and breach of contract—and the jury rejected all counterclaims.
[* Names and marks anonymized for client privacy]
The Jury Verdict
A federal jury in Las Vegas returned a clean sweep for our client, an entertainment event production company that created a successful brand that was hijacked by his former business partner. The verdict caps off four plus years of hard‑fought litigation and confirms what we set out to prove from day one: priority controls ownership in trademark law, and our client owns the trademark.
The trial began September 22, 2025, and followed extensive pretrial motion practice and appellate proceedings. After 10 days of trial, the jury came back with the following verdicts for our client:
- Trademark Infringement Actual Damages
- Trademark Infringement Disgorgement Damages
- Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Damages
- Breach of Contract Damages
The total verdict so far is approx. $1.4M, and we are seeking an additional ~$2M. Specifically, we are filing a post-trial brief for enhancement and treble damages under the Lanham Act (the federal statute governing trademark rights) of approx. $1M. Further, once the verdict is entered, we intend to seek another approx. $1M for attorney’s fees.
Notably, we managed to get the jury to issue liability and damages against not just the business entity, but the individual owner as well. This was strategically critical to attach personal liability on the owner for judgment enforcement and collections efforts, especially considering rumors defendants intend to try to evade collections.
Finally, of equal importance- we defeated every counterclaim against our client. This is significant. Our client created the trademark, and when the events branded under the mark became a huge success, defendant (the travel agent) shut our client out of the events, claimed he created the trademark, and continued to use the mark for events generating millions of dollars. Defendant countersued for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, interference with contract, and defamation. The jury rejected all of the counterclaims outright.
How we got here: early litigation strategy and wins that stuck
From the outset, we moved swiftly for injunctive relief. In September 2022, the court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from using the trademark or any confusingly similar designation and requiring a website disclaimer to curb consumer confusion. When defendants kept using a confusing logo and tried to route traffic around the disclaimer, we returned to court and obtained an enforcement order, a civil‑contempt finding, attorney’s fees, and daily sanctions of $5,000 until compliance.
Defendants then sought to vacate, reconsider, and stay the injunction—motions we opposed and defeated. When defendants continued to violate the injunction, we secured additional monetary sanctions in April 2023.
Two appeals followed. The Ninth Circuit consolidated them and affirmed across the board—upholding the injunction, the contempt finding, and the $5,000/day sanction—without oral argument.
What the jury heard—and why it mattered
At trial, we focused on fundamentals that resonate with both business leaders and juries:
- Priority and ownership. Our evidence showed the trademark originated with our client in 2017, supported by first‑use materials, domain purchase, and brand control.
- Confusion in the marketplace. The marks, services, channels, and audience overlapped; the court had already found a strong likelihood of confusion, and the jury saw real‑world confusion play out.
- Contract and interference. We proved defendants withheld contractually‑owed funds and interfered with business relationships by leveraging our client’s brand equity for competing events.
Defendants advanced a rotating set of theories- “first use,” “joint ownership,” and a “contractor” narrative—and pressed a suite of counterclaims (including defamation, trademark cancellation, and copyright). The jury rejected them all.
Why this win matters to business owners and investors
Brand equity is an asset. If competitors can hijack your name—domain names, social channels, look‑alike logos—customers will follow the copycat. The right early moves (cease‑and‑desist, targeted injunction, prompt enforcement) protect market share and valuation.
Speed + persistence beat gamesmanship. Injunctions only work if they’re enforced. Here, court‑ordered remedies, including a public‑facing disclaimer and daily sanctions, stopped ongoing harm and set the tone for trial.
Paper the “firsts.” For growing brands, keep contemporaneous proofs of first use and control (creative files, posts, invoices, registrations, and admin access to domains/social). Those documents became the backbone of our trial story—and the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning.
For our colleagues: procedural & trial takeaways
- Disgorgement Damages. Under the Lanham Act, a trademark owner can generally seek two types of direct damages- actual damages of lost profits (resulting from the infringing conduct), or disgorgement of defendants’ revenues (generated by the infringing use of the trademark). For disgorgement under the Lanham Act, the plaintiff (us; the TM owner) has the burden to prove gross revenue, and once established, it is the defendants’ burden to prove applicable expenses that should be deducted. During discovery, defendants engaged in obstructive tactics preventing us from meaningfully investigating and verifying the financials. At trial, we elected to only admit evidence of gross revenues by using the deposition record of the defendant’s CEO to refresh his recollection and confirm the gross revenue amounts. When Defendants later sought to introduce expenses through their witness, we objected, filed motions, engaged in side bars, and ultimately prevented defense from presenting evidence of expenses. The exclusion of the alleged expenses resulted in an extra approx. $1.4M to the disgorgement claim, for a total gross revenue of $1.9M.
- Actual Damages. Prior to trial, the focus was on disgorgement damages; however, at trial, we also presented evidence of actual damages. Note, under the Lanham Act, actual damages cannot overlap with disgorgement damages. We managed to present evidence of actual loss that the jury determined not to overlap, resulting in an additional award of $250,000 in actual damages.
- Defense Tactics; Post Trial Briefs. In his Closing, defense counsel improperly displayed a slide purporting to be event expenses related to the disgorgement claim. This was extremely improper (because the Judge specifically ruled to exclude such evidence), and the Judge noted the record of impermissible and prejudicial conduct. The jury ended up awarding disgorgement damages of $795,000, significantly less than the sought after $1.9M. Notably, under the Lanham Act, it is the Judge, not the jury that determines disgorgement damages (unlike actual damages, which is determined by the jury). However, the Judge can request the jury issue an advisory opinion / finding on disgorgement, which is what happened here. Accordingly, our post-trial brief will request the Court enhance the jury finding of $795,000 to $1.9M based on the lack of actual evidence of expenses. In addition, we will seek to treble the actual damages of $250,000, for a final award of $750,000 in actual damages.
- Attorney’s Fees Motion- Exceptional Case Standard. Once the verdict is finalized and judgment is entered, we will file a motion for attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act for approx. $1M. Under the Act, a trademark owner can only obtain an award of attorney’s fee in “exceptional” cases, namely cases demonstrating severe malice and misconduct by the losing party. “Exceptionality” is a high standard to meet; however, we are confident we will prevail here as well. This is because this was indeed an exceptional case. As discussed above, defendants knowingly violated the Court injunction to carry out events, resulting in two contempt findings and sanctions over $50,000. In addition, defense attempted to present tampered evidence of first use and trademark ownership and were impeached over a dozen times on the stand.
- Preliminary injunction as a roadmap. The September 7, 2022, Injunction order did more than stop the bleeding; it clarified ownership, confusion, and remedial steps—guiding discovery, motion practice, and trial themes.
- Enforcement matters. The December 5, 2022, order both found contempt and imposed a $5,000/day sanction, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed—confirming that clear, specific injunction terms can support robust civil‑contempt relief.
- Appellate posture. Consolidated appeals (Nos. 22‑16530 & 22‑16885) were resolved on the briefs, validating the injunction’s specificity and the district court’s confusion analysis.
- Reconsideration/stay practice. Defendants’ emergency reconsideration/stay motion was denied as a rehash of prior arguments; preserving that record helped streamline later contempt and fee awards.
The WG approach
This case exemplifies our trial‑ready mindset: move early, enforce hard, and try the case the court has already signaled through its preliminary findings. Congratulations to our trial team led by Shahrokh Sheik and Michael Alfera supported by local Nevada counsel, for delivering a total victory at trial after prevailing through a preliminary injunction, two contempt findings, and two failed appeals
Have a brand or business under attack? Whether it’s trademark theft, unfair competition, or contract interference, WG brings the speed, strategy, and staying power to protect enterprise value—and win when it counts.