Jay Sullivan focuses his practice on trademarks, copyrights and intellectual property litigation, as well as domestic trademark prosecution and search evaluation, with an emphasis on sports and media law, franchising, and complex commercial litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Sullivan was a trademark litigation associate for more than four years at a leading global law firm in New York, where he assisted in representing, among others, the National Football League and its member clubs, the National Hockey League, ESPN, Discovery Communications, Gruner + Jahr AG, Syngenta, and Comcast Corp. in federal court actions and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Professional & Community Activities
Georgia Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section, Member
Freedom Writers
Cardozo Law Review, Editorial Board, (1999-2000)
Theatrical Outfit, Board of Trustees
Industries
Entertainment, Media & Sports
Experience
Worked on teams handling the following matters:
Synergistic Int'l, LLC v. Korman, Represented the owner of the GLASS DOCTOR mark in a trademark infringement suit against a company that had used the mark WINDSHIELD DOCTOR for 17 years in a specific geographic territory. The defendant had prior actual use of its mark in that geographic area, but such use was junior to the client's federal registration. The defendant had also begun using GLASS DOCTOR interchangeably with its own mark. Obtained summary judgment enjoining the defendant's use of both marks. On a trial on the appropriate quantum of monetary relief, we secured and then successfully defended on appeal an order requiring the defendant's disgorgement of its profits.
Synergistic Int'l, LLC v. Korman, 402 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2005), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 470 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2006).
adidas America Inc. and adidas-Salomon AG v. Payless Shoesource Inc., Represented adidas America Inc. and adidas-Salomon AG in trademark infringement litigation against Payless Shoesource involving the defendant's infringing use of the well-known and distinctive adidas Three-Stripe Mark. Following a 14-day trial and two days of deliberation, the jury found unanimously in adidas' favor on all seven claims, including trademark infringement, trade-dress infringement, unfair competition and unlawful and deceptive trade practices. The jury awarded $305 million in monetary relief, including $137 million in punitive damages. This verdict was the largest in history for a trademark infringement case. Following entry of final judgment in excess of $60 million, the parties later settled for an undisclosed amount.
adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc., No. CV01-1655 (D. Or. Nov. 11, 2008).
Trademark litigation for Lexington Home Brands, The firm represented Lexington Home Brands, a global manufacturer and marketer of distinctive home furnishings, in connection with the enforcement of the company's trademarks. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) issued a decision in favor of our client cancelling the challenged registration of the Lexington Company, a Swedish home textile manufacturer. The Board found the marks at issue and the composite word and design mark confusingly similar when used in connection with "furniture" and the "top of bed" category. The Board held that furniture and "top of bed" products are highly related based on evidence and testimony that furniture companies sell both furniture and household linens under the same mark. The Board's order, while not precedential, is important to all of our furniture clients as home textile companies continue to adopt marks identical or closely similar to our clients' furniture brands.
Mr. Electric Corp. v. Reiad Khalil, et. al., Achieved a win on behalf of our client, The Dwyer Group, and specifically its Mr. Electric subsidiary, against Alber Electric, a business operated by a former MR. ELECTRIC franchisee that was accused of trademark infringement and unfair competition. After a bench trial, we obtained a permanent injunction and an award of the infringer's profits.
Mr. Electric Corp. v. Reiad Khalil, et. al., No. 2:06-cv-02414-CM-GLR (D. Ks. 2009).
University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art Inc., Represent the University of Alabama in a case pending in the Northern District of Alabama in a suit involving the defendant's use of the University's colors and uniforms art in prints depicting famous moments in Alabama football history. The defendant claims use of crimson and white is protected by the First Amendment. The University has argued that its colors and uniforms are the protected trade dress of the University that must be licensed. (Case pending.)
University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art Inc., Civ. No. 00585 (N.D. Ala. filed 2005).
*Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend
Publications
01 January 2009, An Overview of Legal Remedies Against the Trafficking in Goods Bearing Counterfeit Trademarks
Source: Intellectual Property Desk Reference, Other Publications
15 February 2007, Trademark Investigations Revisited
Source: The Intellectual Property Strategist, Articles
News
03 September 2010, Kilpatrick Stockton Continues its Leadership in the Community, News Releases
Events
02 December 2009, Sports Law Update: Leagues, Teams and Video Games Under Attack, Events
05 January 2006, The Basics of Copyright Law, Events
15 April 2004, No Turning Back the Clock: The Significance of Laches in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, et. al., Events