Unlocking Success: Strategic Representation, Attentive Counsel, Assertive Litigation

The administration of an estate is complicated, and disputes can arise at every turn. With an experienced estate litigation lawyer on your side, estate disputes can be resolved agreeably and efficiently. Whether you are a beneficiary or heir, executor or administrator, Seyfnia & Prybylo can help enforce your rights and resolve any estate disputes that arise.

• Trust/Will Contest
• Financial Elder Abuse
• Estate Litigation
• Trust Litigation

• What is a creditor’s claim?
• The owner of a company that owes me money died, do I need to file a creditor’s claim?
• How do I file a creditor’s claim and how long do I have to file?
• My creditor’s claim was rejected, do I have any remedies to pursue my claims?
• My family member executed a new will in the last few days of their life and I believe they executed the new will under unusual circumstances. I was a beneficiary of the old will, but am told I am not a beneficiary of the new will. Can I contest the new will?
• Can the beneficiaries of the will/trust hold the executor responsible for the damage caused to the estate?
• I believe the executor of the decedent’s estate is breaching their duties to the beneficiaries (including myself), can I have them removed as executor?

• Superior Court of Los Angeles – How to File a Creditor’s Claim
• Probate Division Rules
• Estate that may need formal probate

Civil Litigation is a broad category that encompasses a broad range of lawsuits including breach of contract claims, personal injury, real estate disputes, business disputes, trade secret disputes and employment-related disputes.

Civil litigation allows for an individual or company to file a lawsuit in the courts to protect their interest and/or seek recovery for an injury, including non-physical injuries such as harm caused to a company by a competitor who has infringed on a trademark or solicited employees and competitors.

• Hiring a Civil Litigation Professional
• Going to Trial

• I have been served with a lawsuit, how long do I have to respond?
• Can I countersue the Plaintiff if I have claims against them?
• The allegations in the lawsuit filed against me are not true, how do I hold the Plaintiff accountable?
• Will my case go to trial?
• How long does it take to resolve litigation?
• What are the pros/cons of going to trial?
• I signed an arbitration agreement, what does that mean for my lawsuit?

Disputes between shareholders, business partners, employers and employees are commonplace in the realm of litigation and must be dealt with immediately to mitigate costs and damages on both sides. We are well versed in resolving such disputes where an impasse has been reached between partners or board members. Some of the typical lawsuits we handle include the following:

• Contract Actions
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty
• Corporate Litigation
• Shareholder Disputes
• Partnership Disputes
• Injunctions and TROs
• Trade Secret Disputes
• Fraud and Concealment

We counsel small and medium business owners to tailor creative solutions to their individual trademark-related needs. When trademark disputes arise, there are often ways to resolve the dispute without litigation. Trademark owners should consider the various written agreements that may be utilized to resolve ongoing trademark disputes, including consent agreements, concurrent use agreements, or licensing agreements.

Trademark law protects a trademark owner’s exclusive right to use a trademark when the use of the mark by another would be likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source or origin of goods. Trademark law is a federal issue, and as such, the Lanham Act is the federal statute that governs trademarks. To establish a violation under the Lanham Act for either a registered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, or an unregistered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant’s use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion. See A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000).

OR

Click here

To prevail on a claim of trademark infringement, a plaintiff must establish that it has a valid mark entitled to protection; and that the defendant used the same or a similar mark in commerce in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services without the plaintiff’s consent. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant’s use of the mark is likely to confuse as to the affiliation, connection, or association of the defendant with the plaintiff, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the defendant’s goods, services or commercial activities by the plaintiff. See 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005). Thus, “use,” “in commerce,” and “likelihood of confusion” are three distinct elements necessary to establish a trademark infringement claim.

OR

Click here

Analyzing a trademark dispute may seem daunting at first, but the anatomy of a trademark dispute boils down to a few key factors. When assessing a trademark dispute, the process often follows a version of the chronology set forth below:

1. Trademark owner learns that a competitor is utilizing a trademark that seems confusingly similar;
2. Trademark owner turns to legal counsel or trademark attorney;
3. A legal adviser or attorney analyzes the marks or hires an expert to render an opinion as to the similarity of the trademarks based on the following criteria:
   Use:
   The use of a trademark by the alleged infringer must be established as a threshold matter;
   In Commerce:
   The statutory requirement that an alleged infringing use of a trademark be “in commerce” to establish a claim of infringement under the Lanham Act is derived from trademark law’s basis in the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.
   Likelihood of Confusion
   “Likelihood of confusion” is the central focus of any trademark infringement claim. A likelihood of confusion exists when consumers viewing the allegedly infringing mark would probably assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different product or service identified with a similar mark. Courts conducting a likelihood of confusion analysis will apply 2 different standards, depending on whether the accused item directly competes or does not directly compete with the trademarked item (See A&H Sportswear, Inc.
   Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2000)):
   i. the strength of the trademark owner’s mark;
   ii. the degree of similarity between the trademark owner’s mark and the allegedly infringing mark;
   iii. evidence of actual consumer confusion;
   iv. the marketing channels used;
   v. the type of goods involved and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser;
   vi. the alleged infringer’s intent in selecting the mark;
   vii. other facts showing that the consuming public is likely to expect the trademark owner to manufacture a product in the alleged infringer’s market, or is likely to expand into that market.
4. If the goods in question are related but do not directly compete for sales, the likelihood of confusion analysis becomes more complex. The Lapp test is a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion between marks. Factors relevant to a determination of the likelihood of confusion include (See Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460 (3d Cir. 1983):

OR

Click here

• Analyzing the likelihood of confusion of trademarks