Brian G. Gilpin

Representative Trademark Clients

Duluth Trading Company – retailer of work wear, products, and accessories

Johnsonville – manufacturer of popular meat products

Kohl's – retail department stores

Pacific Cycle – manufacturer and distributor of Schwinn, GT, Mongoose, and other brands of bicycles and recreational products

Representative Patent Clients

Asyst Technologies – OEM of automotive parts primarily for forward lighting equipment

Harken, Inc. – manufacturer and marketer of sailboat hardware and accessories

Representative Litigation and Arbitration Matters

Unique Coupons v. Menasha Corporation and Northfield Corporation. Represented packaging equipment manufacturer Northfield in two trials in the Northern District of Illinois and appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit relating to patent infringement claims brought by competitor and resulting in findings of no liability.

Johnsonville Sausage v. Premio Foods. Represented Johnsonville in trademark infringement action against Premio in Eastern District of Wisconsin resulting in settlement during jury trial.

Krause Publications, Inc. v. Chester L. Krause. Represented Krause Publications in trial before Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in trademark opposition matter resulting in denial of Mr. Krause's attempt to obtain trademark registration.

Asyst Technologies v. Eagle Eyes. Represented Asyst Technologies in patent infringement action in Eastern District of Wisconsin against Taiwan manufacturer of after market automotive parts.

U.S. Dairy Export Council et al. v. Interprofession du Gruyère and Syndicat Interprofessionel du Gruyère. Represented U.S. dairy organizations and companies in a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board trial opposing the attempted registration by Swiss and French consortiums of GRUYERE as a certification mark in U.S. The TTAB determined “that purchasers and consumers of cheese understand the term ‘gruyere’ as a designation that primarily refers to a category within the genus of cheese that can come from anywhere” and sustained the opposition in a precedential decision. 2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 10892 (2020).The European consortiums appealed the decision to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia which granted summary judgment in favor of the opposers. 575 F.Supp.3d 627 (2021). On further appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found the evidence “‘so one-sided’ that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and Opposers must prevail as a matter of law.“ The Court reasoned that the “the common usage of gruyere ‘establish[es] that when purchasers walk into retail stores and ask for [gruyere], they regularly mean’ a type of cheese, and not a cheese that was produced in the Gruyère region of Switzerland and France,“ ultimately holding “the Consortiums cannot overcome what the record makes clear: cheese consumers in the United States understand ‘GRUYERE’ to refer to a type of cheese, which renders the term generic.” 61 F.4th 407 (2023). The case received substantial press attention in publications including Fox Business, The Washington Post, The Guardian, U.S. News, Reuters, Law360, and others.

Counsel for various clients in dozens of domain name arbitrations under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP).