When an established business discovered that someone in a different state was using a similar tradename and profiting from the confusion, it asked the firm to intercede. We did so with a suit in Federal Court setting out the elements for trademark infringement as well as violation of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Lanham Act. In short order, the Court ruled in our favor holding that the defendant had in fact diluted our client’s name. The offending company was immediately enjoined from further infringement whether in a brick and mortar facility or in any electronic or printed medium. The Court also awarded our client its incurred attorney’s fees and costs. In a hotly-contested federal case, originally initiated to redress a breach of contract for a ten-year charter, our clients were forced to deal with serious counterclaims while still prosecuting their multi-million dollar complaint. Defending against an attempt to impose a maritime lien on a $300 million luxury vessel, we were forced to litigate many of the same issues a second time - in a related suit filed in a distant jurisdiction, where our opponents had the home field advantage. We prevailed in both forums, and went on to obtain a complete victory for our clients, including a substantial award of fees and costs against the parties - and their attorneys. Alternate dispute resolution, specifically mediation, can be a cost-effective method for settling a controversy. When a Texas international petroleum marketing firm sought to expand into Latin America, it hired the Florida owner of a defunct smaller business in the same sub-specialty. However, when the deal proved unfruitful, it terminated the employee, who promptly sued for alleged breach. Hauled into a Florida court, the Texas company sought our assistance. Maximizing the mediation process, we brought the parties together early in the litigation and helped them resolve their differences. Not all results are provided, the results are not necessarily representative of results obtained by the firm, and a prospective client’s individual facts and circumstances may differ from the matter in which the results are provided.