Law360, Managing IP, Bloomberg Law and Sportico were among the national media outlets noting the role McGuireWoods lawyers played in winning a closely watched trademark infringement trial for The Pennsylvania State University.
The McGuireWoods trial team proved to a federal jury that an online retailer and manufacturer willfully infringed Penn State’s trademarks by selling unlicensed merchandise with names and vintage logos associated with the university. The jury returned the verdict Nov. 19, 2024, following a six-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, awarding compensatory damages to the university.
In a Law360 story published Nov. 20, 2024, McGuireWoods partner Lucy Jewett Wheatley noted the jury also rejected the defendants’ counterclaim that Penn State’s federal trademark registration for the university’s official seal should be canceled and denied the defendants’ affirmative defenses for nominative fair use and aesthetic functionality.
Law360 named the McGuireWoods trial team to its list of “Legal Lions of the Week” for Nov. 22, 2024. Wheatley and partner David Finkelson, co-leaders of McGuireWoods’ intellectual property practice group, led the team, which included counsel Claire Hagan Eller and Courtney Schorr, associates Jessica Maupin and Kyle Smith, and Richmond office managing partner Janet Peyton.
In an interview with Managing IP, Wheatley said the firm was fortunate to represent a tradition-rich institution like Penn State.
“Any time you’re representing a trademark case on behalf of a company whose trademarks date back 100 years, that’s a great position to be in,” she said in the Nov. 26, 2024, story, “Behind the case: How McGuireWoods brought Penn State to victory.”
Wheatley described the challenges of presenting a compelling argument to the jury and how the McGuireWoods team succeeded.
“You think about what you need to build your case as a plaintiff and what evidence will make that understandable to a jury,” she said. “In a trademark case, a lot of it is visual. You have to consider whether the evidence is visually appealing and whether it shows how the marks were used.”