Case Exhibits
We Seek to
Care enough to Speak Honestly;
Be Aware enough to Speak Kindly; and,
Be Wise enough to Speak Persuasively.
Balanced Counsel—
for Smart Clients®
About KeganLaw
Since 1940, Kegan & Kegan, Ltd. has provided its clients personalized strategic advice, preventative guidance, and when needed crisis counseling and defense.
We identify, develop, and protect intangible business assets—trademarks, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, contracts, websites—and counsel other professionals on legal issues.
KeganLaw Pages
Notice—Laws Change
The law is constantly changing. Moreover, no general discussion can incorporate all the specific facts of your particular situation. Consult an attorney for particular legal questions.
Exhibits from Distinctive Cases
Touch Trademark, Registration 3,155,702. 
The mark consists of a velvet textured covering on the surface 
of a bottle of wine. The dotted line in the drawing is not a feature of the mark but is intended to show the location of the mark on a typical container for the goods; the dark/lower part of the container drawing shows the mark. The stippling in the drawing is not a feature of the mark, but a representation of how one type of velvet covering may appear in visual form. The mark is a sensory, touch mark. International Trademark Class 33, Wines.
$1.7 Million Award for Discovery Sanctions 
(Mishan)
Defendant infringed plaintiff’s Praying Hands Crystal Bell, did not properly reply to discovery requests nor court order. $1.7 million trade dress & copyright infringement award on decorative crystal bells; Ultimate preclusion sanctions for defendant’s egregious discovery abuse.
Use of Surname, Deceptive Trade Practices Enjoined 
(Ptak)
Plaintiff's predecessor jewelry business, was founded in 1946 by three brothers surnamed Ptak. Ownership transferred to founders' three children, Saree, Alan, and Gary. The Cousins dissolved the company, selling assets at auction, including intellectual property. Before the auction, Gary Ptak started his own, competing jewelry business. Defendants associated themselves with the predecessor company. Defendants' website asserted they were the sole legitimate successor to Ptak Bros., Inc., and the historical successor to the "Ptak Family" and "The Company." Defendants' website asserted "For over 60 years it has been my family's tradition to offer superior quality and service.... [N]othing makes me more proud than to continue this tradition with an altogether improved operation." The court granted a broad preliminary injunction, including use of PTAK trademarks, use of a new PTAKAGES slogan, telephone and Internet domains containing PTAK, trading on the PTAK goodwill.
