Source: http://www.mulcahyllp.com/practiceareas/unfaircompetition.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:33:54+00:00

Document:
Mulcahy LLP provides clients with pre-litigation preventive and enforcement advice relating to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and similar state and federal unfair competition laws. We also have brought, defended and tried numerous actions under these unfair competition laws on behalf of clients in the franchise, consumer products, automotive, food and beverage, beer distribution, business services, and other industries.
We are well versed in common law unfair competition, as well as federal and state statutory unfair competition laws. In particular, we have an extensive working knowledge of the scope and nature of California’s antitrust law and Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. We successfully have represented many clients in cases involving California’s three-pronged statutory antitrust law, which includes the Cartwright Act, the Unfair Practices Act and the ubiquitous Unfair Competition Law, as well as various statutory restrictions on covenants not to compete.
Among other areas, we provide litigation and counseling services in the areas of price fixing, territorial and customer restrictions, exclusive dealing and tying arrangements, group boycotts and refusals to deal, below cost pricing and price discrimination, and Little FTC deceptive trade practices statutes. Our successful Unfair Competition practice stems from our ability to handle complex commercial litigation at all stages of a case, from a motion to dismiss through discovery to trial.
SanSai – Assignment for the Benefit of Creditor Cases.
Mulcahy LLP represents the purchaser of assets from an assignment for the benefit of creditors against fraudulent transfer claims filed by several debtors in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Very often, bad facts produce judicial pronouncements that ostensibly appear logically tortured, but which, upon closer observation, reflect the Court’s attempt to exercise its perception of good judgment and fundamental fairness. On November 26, 2013, a California appellate court provided an example of this phenomenon.
Potential liability for product defects is an expensive and non-trivial concern for all manufactures and their distributors. In recent years, no product has been under more fire than Monster Beverage Company’s popular caffeinated “Monster Energy” drinks.
Mulcahy LLP attorneys recently tried to conclusion three separate arbitrations on behalf of former Booster Juice Regional Developers against franchisor Booster Juice LLP.
Concord Foods, Inc. v. Vistar Corporation, et al.
Our lawyers initiated an action to protect the client's proprietary trade secrets and customer lists from being misappropriated by a competitor. The case was pending before the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California.
Franchamps, LLC, et al. v. Play N Trade Franchise, Inc.
Mulcahy LLP represents the franchisor against regional developers and a franchisee for claims of fraud and violation of the California Franchise Investment Laws, Florida Franchise Act and Florida Unfair Business Pracitices Act.
Shaw v. Iowa Grain Co., Kanz v. U.S. Futures and First Options Co., and Sussman v. Refco, Inc.
(National Futures Association, Chicago) the firm arbitrated claims brought before the NFA alleging unauthorized trading, failure to liquidate open positions, and failure to supervise broker activity in customer accounts.
(Orange County Superior Court; Judicate West, Orange County) the firm defended against claims brought by a member of an LLC against the LLC regarding the ownership of a popular restaurant and the rights and duties of the members of the LLC.
Aussie Pet Mobile, Inc., et al., v. Concentric Equity Partners, LP, et al.
(California Superior Court, Orange County, 2010), Mulcahy LLP represented the franchisor in a lawsuit against one of its preferred shareholders involving claims of fraud and breach of contract.
Mulcahy LLP filed the following lawsuits on behalf the same franchisor client to recover unpaid fees, enforce the non-competition clause in the franchise agreements, and to protect the client’s trademarks and trade secrets against existing or former franchisees that were operating outside the system.
Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Budget Blinds & Shutters, et al.
(United States District Court, Central District of California, January 2010), defendant commenced operation of a competing business utilizing a trade name confusingly similar to that of franchisor Budget Blinds, Inc.’s proprietary marks.
(United States District Court, Central District of California, March 2010), defendant, a former licensee, continued to operating a competing business utilizing the licensor’s service marks and trade name and in violation of the noncompetition provision contained within the parties’ license agreement.
Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Lyle Hayman et. al.
(AAA, Orange County, California and United States District Court, Central District of California, September 2009), Mulcahy LLP was retained to file a demand for arbitration against defendants, former franchisees, as a result of their operation of a competing window covering business in violation of their franchise agreement.
Budget Blinds, Inc. v. Sherre Paschal, et al.
(United States District Court, Central District of California, May 2010), Mulcahy LLP initiated litigation on behalf of a franchisor against former franchisees for breach of contract, service mark infringement and injunctive relief.
Clark Equipment Company v. Lift Parts Mfg.
Jim Mulcahy successfully represented Clark Equipment in cases brought under the United States Copyright Act, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, federal and state unfair competition law, and under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, their counterparts under state antitrust laws, and the Robinson Patman Act.
(Orange County Superior Court) the firm represented the U.S. distributor of Isuzu vehicles, defending the claims of a vehicle dealer who alleged that the distributor had wrongfully withheld consent to the transfer of the franchise.
(Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) Jim Mulcahy as lead trial counsel successfully defended a $38 million action alleging the defective design and installation of telephone system infrastructure.
KFC Corporation v. Parvez Shaikh, et al.
(United States District Court, Central District of California, April 2009), Mulcahy LLP initiated a lawsuit on behalf of a franchisor against a former franchisee for claims of breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair business practices, among others.
(California Superior Court, County of Orange, 2011), Mulcahy LLP defended a manufacturer of water filtration systems against claims of false advertising and unfair competition. The case settled just short of trial.
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio) Jim Mulcahy was the lead trial counsel for Tomkins, P.L.C., a multinational company based in the United Kingdom, in a suit brought by an industrial valve company alleging breach of contract, fraud, trademark infringement, antitrust violations, theft of trade secrets and unfair competition.
Play N Trade Enforcement Actions.
Mulcahy LLP filed the following lawsuits on behalf the same franchisor client to recover unpaid fees, enforce the non-competition clause in the franchise agreements, and to protect the client’s trademarks and trade secrets against former franchisees operating outside the system.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.