Attorney George Sink Jr. (Courtesy photo)In the Name of the Father: Sink Jr. Can't Promote Firm in Familial Dispute
A trademark dispute involving father and son attorneys who share the same name is moving forward in South Carolina federal court.
August 15, 2019 at 05:57 PM
3 minute read
A lawyer with the same name as his attorney father will have to stop promoting his law firm—at least for now.
A South Carolina judge has granted a preliminary injunction preventing George T. Sink Jr. from marketing his law firm, George Sink II Law Firm. Sink Jr. is being sued in district court by his father, George T. Sink Sr., who claims that the name of his son’s firm violates the trademark of his own firm, George Sink P.A. Injury Lawyers.
In the initial complaint, filed April 25, Sink Sr. claimed the name of his son’s new law firm infringes on his firm’s trademark and could lead to confusion with clients or on internet searches. The preliminary injunction was granted Aug. 9.
The complaint alleged that soon after Sink Jr. was fired from his father’s firm, the son, who is also a personal injury attorney, opened a new firm named after himself, which has been confusing both for clients and internet traffic. After the new firm opened, Google suspended the website for the older firm’s website over confusion about two separate business listings for George Sink. Sink Sr.’s firm said it took two weeks of work to ensure that Google searches recognized the firms as separate entities, during which the elder Sink’s firm appeared lower in search results and lost positive Google reviews.
“The George Sink marks are famous, at least throughout South Carolina and Georgia,” the suit said. When the complaint was filed, the elder Sink’s firm said it had registered its name as a trademark for the benefit of potential consumers, who should not be confused about from whom they are receiving services.
“The goal is not to keep ‘Ted’ Sink from practicing law,” the statement said. “However, when consumers look for George Sink PA Injury Lawyers, they must be confident they will find the firm they seek.”
In Sink Jr.’s response, filed May 29, he said that any market confusion over the firms was the fault of his father. The son said his father’s firm actively promoted him as “George Sink Jr.” when he was still working at the firm and that he has as much right to go by George Sink professionally has his father does—and that includes the name of his firm.
“If there is market confusion, which the defendant rejects, the confusion was manufactured by the plaintiff,” Sink Jr. said.
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
Walking a Minute in Your Adversary’s Shoes: Addressing the Issue of 'Naive Realism' at Mediation
5 minute read
Anticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
6 minute read
On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
6 minute readTrending 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
