Logos of George Sink, P.A., of George Sink and George Sink ll Law Firm of George Sink Jr.Sink Sr. v. Sink Jr.: Namesake Son Fires Back at Dad's Suit Over Firm Names
A trademark dispute between the two lawyers in South Carolina federal court has become even more acrimonious in the last few days.
May 31, 2019 at 05:45 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Johnny Cash's famous song “A Boy Named Sue” ends with the singer vowing to name his own son George. But Charleston plaintiffs lawyer George Sink Sr. seems to regret doing just that—and now his son, George Sink Jr., is firing back.
A trademark dispute between the two lawyers in South Carolina federal court has become even more acrimonious in the last few days, with Sink Jr. claiming his father is responsible for any market confusion he now blames on his son.
Sink Sr. “has declared war on his son,” said Sink Jr. in May 29 court documents. “Senior has failed to be faithful to his own flesh and blood.”
Sink Sr. sued Sink Jr., also a Charleston plaintiffs lawyer, earlier this year to prevent his son from using George Sink II Law Firm as the name of his new shop. Sink Jr. opened his firm in February, a few days after his father's firm fired him.
Sink Sr. claims his son is violating the trademark Sink Sr. holds for his own 22-year-old firm, George Sink, P.A. Injury Lawyers. In court documents, Sink Sr. refers to his son by his son's nickname, Ted. (Both lawyers' middle name is Theodore.)
But Sink Jr.'s May 29 response, opposing his father's preliminary injunction motion, contends that his father cannot prevent him from using his legal name for his own law firm—and it tells a very different story about their falling out.
According to his filing, the younger Sink spent the first 11 years of his career working in marketing in New York for McGarryBowen, BBDO and other firms, but then in 2013 returned to Charleston at his father's request.
His father had started thinking about retirement and offered to pay him to attend law school with the plan of ultimately transitioning the firm over to him, Sink Jr. said. (Over the years George Sink, P.A. Injury Lawyers has grown to 45 lawyers in 14 offices, according to its website.)
Sink Jr. agreed and “excitedly returned home in reliance on the promises made by his father,” according to his filing. He enrolled at the Charleston School of Law, and, during law school, he worked in the marketing department at George Sink, P.A., Injury Lawyers.
The firm advertises heavily on TV, radio, social media and via its website, sinklaw.com, according to Sink Sr.'s complaint, which also asked for the surrender of Sink Jr.'s website domain name, GeorgeSinkLawFirm.com.
After Sink Jr. was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in November 2016, he said, he became an associate at his father's firm while continuing to assist with marketing.
At that time, Sink Jr. claims, his father actively promoted him as “George Sink Jr.”—and not by Ted, his nickname—in TV advertising for the law firm, and on its letterhead and business cards. “That is, the plaintiff wanted George Jr. to be identified as attorney George Sink, until it became inconvenient to have two George Sink attorneys in the world.”
That happened, Sink Jr. alleges, when George Sink, P.A. Injury Lawyers' revenue “spiked to the point that national suitors came calling.” The “suitors found it inconvenient that there was another attorney in town named George Sink,” Sink Jr. said.
That prompted Sink Sr. to ask Sink Jr. to sign a confidentiality and nonsolicitation agreement, according to Sink Jr. The younger Sink found the terms “unacceptable” and refused to sign. Sink Sr. told his son to “change the agreement to something he could sign.” Sink Jr. did so, and both signed the agreement on April 30, 2018.
What's at issue now is a dispute over what the agreement means. An arbitration clause in it says that the employer, Sink Sr., may only recover up to $500 against the employee, Sink Jr., and that they agree “that this represents full and final payment for all claims against employee now and in the future.”
Sink Sr. fired Sink Jr. on Feb. 7. Soon after, Sink Jr. started his own shop, and on March 6 he sent his father's firm a check for $500, via his lawyers at Bland Richter, “to avoid any unnecessary and frivolous legal proceedings,” according to several exhibits attached to the younger Sink's filing.
Sink Jr. contends he has as much right to be George Sink professionally as his father, including in the name of his law firm. “If there is market confusion, which the defendant rejects, the confusion was manufactured by the plaintiff,” Sink Jr. said.
What's more, Sink Jr. said, the two trademarks Sink Sr. holds are merely “design marks” for the logos for “George Sink, P.A., Injury Lawyers” and “George Sink P.A.” which Sink Jr. is not infringing with his own logo and promotional materials for George Sink II Law Firm.
His father can't trademark their shared name, Sink Jr. argues, adding that Sink Sr. does not hold a trademark for “George Sink Ubiquitous TV Face.”
Neither Sink Sr. nor attorneys he's retained from Gibbs & Holmes and Moore & Van Allen immediately responded to an emailed request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
So You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
