Unfair Competition

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act provides a robust federal cause of action for any person who believes they are likely to be damaged by the use of a false designation of origin or a false or misleading description of fact. Unlike registered trademark litigation, this federal mandate allows for the protection of unregistered marks and general commercial identity. To succeed, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct creates a likelihood of confusion among the ordinary purchasing public. Our firm utilizes advanced forensic market surveys and consumer data analysis to establish this confusion with the clinical precision required to secure immediate injunctive relief.

The common law tort of "passing off" occurs when a defendant represents their goods or services as those of a competitor. This deceptive tactic is a direct violation of fair competition principles, as it allows a bad-faith actor to profit from the reputation and quality established by another firm. The jurisdictional trigger for these claims often rests on the "similarity of the marks" and the "proximity of the products" in the marketplace. We provide the technical oversight to identify these infringements early, preventing the permanent erosion of your brand’s prestige.

Trade dress involves the total image and overall appearance of a product or its packaging, including size, shape, color and graphics. Under modern Unfair Competition standards, trade dress is protectable if it is non-functional and has acquired "secondary meaning" in the minds of consumers. Defending trade dress requires a sophisticated understanding of the "functionality doctrine," which prevents a company from using trademark law to monopolize a useful product feature that belongs in the public domain. SJKP LLP specializes in articulating the distinctiveness of your product's aesthetic, ensuring your packaging and design are shielded from imitation.

A trade secret can include any formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method or process that derives independent economic value from not being generally known. The jurisdictional requirement for protection is that the owner must have taken reasonable steps to keep the information secret. This often becomes the primary point of contention in Unfair Competition litigation. We perform a detailed regulatory review of your internal security protocols, non-disclosure agreements and digital access logs to ensure your data meets the statutory definition of a trade secret.

To prevail in a misappropriation claim, a business must prove that its secrecy measures were "reasonable under the circumstances." This includes the use of password protection, restricted physical access and clear employee training regarding the confidentiality of specific data sets. If a court finds that the owner was lax in their security, the trade secret status may be forfeited, leaving the information free for competitors to use. Our partners provide the authoritative oversight needed to audit your compliance with these secrecy mandates before a breach occurs.

When a trade secret is stolen, time is of the essence. The primary remedy is a Preliminary Injunction to stop the defendant from using or disclosing the secret further. In cases of willful and malicious misappropriation, the court may award exemplary damages and attorney fees, which function as a powerful deterrent against future economic espionage. SJKP LLP acts with the practical decisiveness required to secure these emergency orders, stopping the bleed of your proprietary information before the damage becomes irreparable.

The Lanham Act prohibits commercial advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of the defendant's or another person's goods. A plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant intended to deceive, only that the advertisement was literally false or that it was misleading in its context. We provide the forensic analysis of advertising copy and promotional materials to identify these deceptive triggers, protecting your market position from competitors who use lies to steal your customers.

"Bait and switch" is a specific form of deceptive trade practice where a company advertises a product at a low price to attract customers (the bait) but then pressures them to buy a more expensive item (the switch). While often prosecuted by state attorneys general, these tactics also provide a basis for private Unfair Competition claims between businesses. If a competitor is using fraudulent sales tactics to siphon off your leads, we provide the aggressive litigation support needed to expose these practices and seek restitution for your lost opportunities.

Many states have enacted broad consumer protection laws, such as California’s Business and Professions Code Section 17200, which prohibit "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." These statutes often allow for "representative" actions and provide for the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. Navigating the overlap between federal and state deceptive practice laws requires a clinical understanding of jurisdictional rules. Our firm manages these multi-layered claims, ensuring that every statutory remedy is explored to maximize your recovery.

To prove interference with an existing contract, a plaintiff must show the existence of a valid contract, the defendant’s knowledge of that contract and an intentional act designed to induce a breach. The focus is on the defendant’s "improper motive" or "improper means." If a competitor convinces one of your key vendors or clients to break their agreement with you, they have committed a jurisdictional offense that authorizes you to seek damages. We specialize in proving these elements through a forensic examination of communications and financial incentives.

Even in the absence of a signed contract, the law protects a business’s reasonable expectation of future economic benefit. A claim for interference with prospective economic advantage requires proof that the defendant acted with the specific intent to disrupt the relationship using "independently wrongful" means. This often involves the use of bribery, threats or defamation to steal a pending deal. SJKP LLP provides the authoritative advocacy needed to defend your future revenue streams from these predatory outside actors.

A common defense to interference claims is that the defendant was merely engaging in "privileged competition." The courts generally allow businesses to compete for the same customers, provided they do not use improper means. Distinguishing between "vigorous competition" and "tortious interference" is the primary challenge in these cases. We provide the incisive insight required to evaluate the defendant’s conduct, ensuring that the "competition defense" is not used as a mask for illegal business practices.

Trade libel requires the plaintiff to prove "special damages," which means a specific, quantifiable loss of money or business resulting from the false statement. This is a higher evidentiary burden than in personal defamation cases. Our partners coordinate with forensic accountants and economic experts to document the direct link between the disparaging statement and the decline in your revenue. We ensure that every dollar of lost profit is accounted for in our demand for compensation.

While defamation protects the reputation of the person or entity, product disparagement protects the marketability of the goods themselves. Often, a single statement will trigger both causes of action. The jurisdictional trigger for these claims is the "falsity" of the statement and the defendant’s "malice" or reckless disregard for the truth. SJKP LLP acts as a formidable barrier against these reputational attacks, utilizing aggressive litigation to force retractions and recover damages.

Defendants in disparagement cases often hide behind the First Amendment, claiming their statements were merely "opinion" or "protected speech." However, the Supreme Court has established that "commercial speech" does not enjoy the same level of protection as political speech, especially when it is false or misleading. We provide the clinical legal analysis needed to overcome these constitutional defenses, proving to the court that the defendant’s speech was a predatory tool used for an illegal commercial end.

California’s Business and Professions Code Section 17200 is perhaps the most powerful Unfair Competition statute in the nation. It prohibits any "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent" business act. An act is "unlawful" if it violates any other law, and it is "unfair" if it offends public policy or is immoral, unethical or unscrupulous. This "broad sweep" allows us to target a wide variety of bad-faith conduct that might otherwise escape federal oversight.

Many state UCL statutes allow for a private right of action, meaning a business can sue its competitor directly without waiting for a government agency to act. In some jurisdictions, a plaintiff can even bring a representative suit on behalf of the general public. This provides incredible leverage in litigation, as it can lead to massive restitution orders and injunctions that cover an entire industry. We manage these high-stakes statutory claims with the clinical precision needed to secure maximum relief.

It is important to understand that many state UCL statutes, including Section 17200, primarily offer "restitution" rather than "damages." Restitution involves forcing the defendant to return any money or property they acquired through the unfair practice. While this is different from a standard damage award, the amounts can be staggering when a competitor has built an entire business model on deceptive tactics. SJKP LLP provides the forensic accounting support to trace these ill-gotten gains and ensure they are returned to their rightful owners.