" Passionate about
protecting our client's
ideas and visions"
Michael Machat is one of the few private attorneys that has taken a case to the U.S. Supreme Court and won.
Various Six and Seven Figure Confidential Settlements representing clients up against Fortune 500 companies.
We've taken on cases that other lawyers passed on, finding value and obtaining hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even millions, for our clients in the process.
Our practice covers all aspects of trademark law from the selection and filing of trademarks to fighting all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect our clients' rights.
Music and Copyright contract negotiation and litigation
Business Startups and litigation
Wine and Spirit law advice and litigation,
Corporation formation and selection of legal entity
General Corporate matters
Copyrights and contract litigation plus more.
A Few Representative Matters
KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impression, 543 U.S. 111, 125 S.Ct. 542 (2004)
Practice Area: Trademark infringement
Date: Oct 05, 2004
Outcome: Won 9-0
Description: Client received a cease and desist letter demanding that client stop using a trademark that client believed was generic, and if not generic then descriptive. After convincing District Court judge that the fair use defense warranted entering a summary judgment in client's favor, the 9th Circuit reversed ruling that the fair use defense is not available if there is resulting confusion. We then brought the case to Supreme Court and won, establishing that the fair use defense to trademark infringement is a viable defense even if there would be resulting confusion.
Talent Mobile Development, Inc. v. Headios Group, et al., Case No. 18cv0156 US District Court, Central District of California
Practice Area: Trademark Infringement
Jury Verdict award of $710,000 in favor of client, and Injunction Granted.
Description: Parties fought over the right to the trademark “REAL CALLER” in connection with caller identification applications. At issue were determinations of who the prior user was, the territoriality of the prior use, whether or not client’s acquisition of the mark REAL CALLER ID during the course of the lawsuit was transferable to Client. Notably, the gathering of evidence of client’s earliest uses was challenging since the documents were scattered and mostly in the possession of a Chinese national who client was not able to contact. Ultimately, we had to prove prior use via the WayBack Machine and other indirect evidence.
Federal Republic of Germany v Albert Sendrey, Case No. BC124144 filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court
Practice Area: Litigation
Date: Jan 22, 1998
Outcome: Jury Nullification Verdict in favor of client, Albert Sendrey
Description: German government sued former holocaust survivor for fraud and theft for cashing pension payments intended for his deceased father, also a holocaust survivor. Client and his family were interned in the Buchanwald concentration camp, but were let out early in the War due to the fact that client was born in the US while his parents were visiting. Client and his family were severely mistreated as all others in the concentration camp, and client felt entitled to the funds. Due to the criminal natural of the activity, client exercised his rights under the 5th amendment not to testify at deposition. The Court then refused to let the client testify at trial. The Court also refused to let the defense move forward with its claim of unjust enrichment, and refused to let the defense even utter the words Nazi or Holocaust. Yet, using just client's infectious smile as a tool, we were able to silently persuade the jury to rule in client's favor and render a defense verdict in a case of jury nullification.
Frank-Lin Distillers Ltd. v. Megawine, Inc. et al. filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court
Practice Area: Business Litigation
Date: June 2016
Outcome: Jury Verdict in favor of client, Megawine on cross-complaint
Trial Verdict in favor of client, on alter-ego claim
Description: Corporate client, a beverage distributor, and its owner, also a client, were sued for failure to pay well over a million dollars. The owner was sued as the alter-ego of the company. We filed a cross-complaint alleging breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arguing that the supplier prevented the client from enjoying the benefits of the contract and that the client was not the alter-ego of Megawine and not responsible for its debts. The jury returned a verdict of $333,000 on Megawine's cross-complaint agreeing with our breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing argument. The Judge subsequently ruled in our client's favor that he was not the alter-ego of Megawine and awarded him his attorneys fees and costs of $160,000. This case is currently up on appeal.