[E-trademarks] Dirt Candy TM Dispute

[Eric Morton]

I heartily concur.  I tell my clients to talk to me before they negotiate and after they negotiate, but leave the lawyers out of the negotiations.

--
Eric D. Morton
Attorney
Clear Sky Law Group, P.C.
1300 Clay St., Ste. 600, Oakland, CA 94612
P:  (510) 556-0367 / (760) 722-6582
F:  (510) 751-4598
emorton at clearskylaw.com
www.clearskylaw.com


-----Original Message-----
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:29 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Dirt Candy TM Dispute

  Over the span of many years, I have seen many situations where the step of getting lawyers into the situation made things far worse instead of better.  Many times my suspicion is that most of the blame would lie with one of the lawyers and not the other. That the blameworthy lawyer would either consciously or subconsciously select the behavior path that would make the most money for the lawyer, regardless of whether this would align with the interests of that lawyer's client.

There are many times where I ended up coaching my client about stuff, and then I suggested my client speak person-to-person with the nonlawyer human being on the other side.  And the clients would come back with a deal sketched onto a cocktail napkin.  The lawyers were then told "make it so".

And even then I can think of many times where once again the introduction of the lawyers into the situation, post-cocktail-napkin, ruined everything.  And again I would have the suspicion that most of the blame would lie with one of the lawyers.

Early in my law career some very seasoned lawyer tried to explain to me what the phrase "attorney and counselor-at-law" might mean in a better world.   That the service provider ought to be a counselor as well as (or sometimes instead of) being an aggressor.

On 2/14/2025 11:50 AM, Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> On 2/14/2025 10:23 AM, Miriam Richter, Esq. via E-trademarks wrote:
>> one month to rebrand is unrealistic in the best situation and use of 
>> the term “unlawful violation” in a “supportive” C&D is not conducive 
>> to warm and fuzzy feelings
> Hear, hear. The client asked for a "nice" cease and desist letter and 
> this sounds anything but nice to me.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS
> 4641 Post St.
> Unit 4316
> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
>