Evan A. Raynes

Evan A. Raynes, JD, has over 15 years of intellectual property experience, with an emphasis on trademark counseling, prosecution, and litigation. He has broad experience in all aspects of trademark counseling and prosecution, including domestic and foreign trademark clearance, portfolio management, licensing, and audits. Evan has also counseled clients on numerous domain name, copyright, patent, false advertising, trade secret, right of publicity, social media, privacy, and data security issues. In addition to his prosecution and counseling experience, Evan has substantial experience in intellectual property litigation. He has worked on a wide range of trademark, unfair competition, copyright, patent, and trade secret cases, including large cases for industry-leading companies. He has appeared before federal courts at the district court and appellate levels, and has substantial experience handling opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Evan also has substantial experience handling domain name disputes before the World Intellectual Property Organization. He has broad experience in electronic discovery in all types of intellectual property litigation. Prior to joining Symbus, Evan was a partner at the intellectual property law firm Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner and the general practice firm Roetzel & Andress.

Author's posts

Avoiding Trademark and Domain Name Scams

It’s only a matter of time.  If you own a trademark application or registration, at some point, you are going to receive a fraudulent request to make a payment or take some other unnecessary action relating to the trademark or a related domain name.  At first glance, these fraudulent requests may appear legitimate, but they …

Continue reading

The Effect of TTAB Proceedings on Federal Court Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent trademark decision in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries (March 25, 2015) has generated a substantial amount of concern. According to some lawyers, there has been a sea change in the law. They say the Supreme Court’s decision means that, once the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) (the judicial arm …

Continue reading

“Lack of Intent to Use” – An Increasingly Common Weapon in Trademark Cases

The number of successful attacks on trademark applications and registrations based on a “lack of intent to use” has been increasing in recent years. Trademark owners often include as many products and services in their applications as possible, describing their products and services in various ways, and listing assorted products and services related to their …

Continue reading

Declaratory Judgment Actions in Intellectual Property Cases

When a company is accused of intellectual property infringement, it can respond in several ways. The accused party can agree to the other side’s demands. The accused party can try to negotiate with the other side. The accused party can reject the other side’s demands and adopt a wait-and-see approach. Or, in certain circumstances, the …

Continue reading

Under Armour v. Life Armour: Symbus Defending Another Trademark Bullying Case

Following its recent success in the Livestrong v. Kidstrong trademark opposition (Symbus Blog, February 19, 2013), Symbus has taken on another trademark bullying case, this one involving a trademark opposition filed by athletic clothing giant Under Armour against Symbus client Life Armour. The Under Armour v. Life Armour case is the most recent in a …

Continue reading

Livestrong v. Kidstrong: Symbus Client Kidstrong Prevails in Trademark Bullying Case

We are pleased to report that the Livestrong Foundation has withdrawn its trademark opposition against our client Kidstrong Enterprises. As we previously reported in this space, the Foundation filed an opposition against Kidstrong, alleging that Kidstrong’s application to register the trademark PROSTRONG, which covers dietary beverages, violated its rights in the mark LIVESTRONG. Kidstrong responded …

Continue reading

Meritless Arguments Don’t Pay: $400K+ in Attorney’s Fees Awarded in Recent Trademark Case

Attorney’s fee awards are relatively rare in trademark cases, but when litigants make meritless arguments, attorney’s fees aren’t far behind. Proving, once again, that it doesn’t pay to make meritless arguments, the Middle District of Florida recently awarded Defendant X/Open Company Limited over $400,000 in attorney’s fees and costs as a result of the meritless …

Continue reading

Symbus Receiving Significant Press Coverage for Role in Trademark Bullying Case

Symbus has recently received significant press coverage for its defense of Kidstrong Enterprises in a trademark case filed by the Lance Armstrong Foundation. This is an important case because Kidstrong’s defense is based, in part, on allegations of “trademark bullying”—a trademark owner’s unreasonable interpretation of the scope of its rights for the purpose of intimidating …

Continue reading