Charles Hooker focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, including cases involving trademarks, unfair competition, copyrights, and Internet disputes. Representative clients in litigated matters include adidas AG and adidas America, Inc., American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., AT&T, Chrysler Group LLC, FN Herstal S.A., The Collegiate Licensing Company, YellowPages.com LLC, and Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP. Mr. Hooker was named a Georgia Super Lawyers Rising Star for Intellectual Property Litigation in 2016 and the four years prior; and has been recognized as a top attorney by peers in Georgia Trend magazine's Legal Elite. He received the Kerry Harike Joedecke Atlanta Young Lawyer of the Year Award in 2010.
Mr. Hooker has been a guest lecturer in trademark and copyright courses at Emory Univeristy School of Law and the University of Georgia School of Law, and he frequently speaks at conferences and on panels in these areas. He also devotes a substantial amount of time to pro bono litigation matters, including work with the Southern Center for Human Rights and the Anti-Defamation League. And he is also actively involved in the community and the Atlanta Bar. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for WonderRoot. He formerly has served as a Board member of the Atlanta Council of Younger Lawyers, the Intown Academy, Out of Hand Theater, and the Candler Park Conservancy. Mr. Hooker is also a former member of the Atlanta Bar Association's "Reputation and Public Trust" Committee.
Prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend, Mr. Hooker served as a law clerk to Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. During law school, Mr. Hooker was the Editor-in-Chief of the Emory International Law Review and Executive Director of Student Legal Services.
Before law school, Mr. Hooker worked for Habitat for Humanity through an Americorps grant, earned a master's degree in Religion from the University of Chicago, and conducted research at the Peter Drucker School of Management in Claremont, California, on issues of leadership and optimal performance in the areas of business, science, journalism, and sports.
Represented FN Herstal, S.A., a Belgian firearms and weapons manufacturer in a trademark infringement case against Clyde Armory involving our client's rights to the trademark SCAR for assault rifles and accessories. Following a bench trial, the court issued a lengthy order holding that FN Herstal has superior rights in its SCAR mark and that there was "ample evidence of bad faith" on Clyde Armory's part in adopting and using its infringing SCAR-Stock mark for assault rifle stocks. The court issued a permanent injunction against Clyde Armory, ordering it to, among other things, cease all use of SCAR or SCAR‐Stock and to deliver up for destruction its infringing products and any materials displaying SCAR or SCAR‐Stock. Clyde Armory has filed an appeal, and we are representing FN Herstal in the pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. FN Herstal, S.A. v. Clyde Armory, Inc. et al No. 1:12-cv-01867 (N.D. Ga., filed May 31, 2012).
Represented various AT&T entities in negotiating a favorable settlement before trial in litigation involving purported breaches of a previous settlement agreement and allegations of trademark infringement.
Represented four major universities and The Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) in a trade dress infringement case. In an attempt to avoid the provisions of a prior settlement agreement, the defendant, a clothing provider, sold t-shirts and other merchandise bearing university colors that did not include any of the colleges’ registered marks. The firm secured a ruling rejecting the theory that school colors were aesthetically functional and that the defendant's use was "fair." After prevailing on summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement and unfair competition, we conducted a two-day jury trial on monetary relief. The plaintiffs recovered damages in the form of a reasonable royalty and an accounting of defendants’ profits. The defendants later appealed, and the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed. Louisiana State University v. Smack Apparel Co., 438 F. Supp. 2d 653 (E.D. La. 2006), aff'd, 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008).
We represented youth fashion retailer American Eagle Outfitters (AEO) in a trademark infringement and unfair competition matter. We filed suit in 2010 on behalf of AEO against a number of defendants who opened retail stores under the name AMERICAN EAGLE FURNITURE. The defendants asserted that there was no likelihood of confusion due to the obvious differences in the parties’ goods, customers and price points. Not only had AEO previously sold a variety of home furnishings, but we were also able to collect more than 100 instances of actual confusion. In December 2013, the court ruled in our favor on virtually every likelihood-of-confusion factor and every issue. It found that the defendants had infringed AEO’s mark; it cancelled defendants’ registration; and it rejected their defenses. The court further offered a number of findings that will prove helpful to AEO beyond this case—such as there is “evidence amply supporting the strength and fame of AE Outfitters’ mark.”
Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Am. Eagle Furniture, Inc., 11 C 02242, 2013 WL6839815 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2013).
Represented Chrysler in successfully obtaining a settlement agreement before trial in litigation involving resolution of Defendant’s improper use of Chrysler’s IMPORTED FROM DETROIT trademark.
Served as lead counsel for Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP in the defense of our client against a trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim after the court denied its motion for preliminary injunction. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods. LP, No. 1:09-cv-00318 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2009).
Represented adidas America Inc. and adidas-Salomon AG in trademark infringement litigation against Payless Shoesource involving the defendant’s infringing use of the well-known and distinctive adidas Three-Stripe Mark. Following a 14-day trial and two days of deliberation, the jury found unanimously in adidas' favor on all seven claims, including trademark infringement, trade-dress infringement, unfair competition and unlawful and deceptive trade practices. The jury awarded $305 million in monetary relief, including $137 million in punitive damages. This verdict was the largest in history for a trademark infringement case. Following entry of final judgment in excess of $60 million, the parties later settled for an undisclosed amount. adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc., No. CV01-1655 (D. Or. Nov. 11, 2008).
Represents a leading footwear and apparel manufacturer in trademark litigation and enforcement work.
Insights View All
Emory University School of Law, J.D. (2006)
University of Chicago, M.A., Religion (2000)
Rhodes College, B.A., Psychology (1996)
Georgia Superior Court (2006)
Georgia Lower Courts (2006)
Georgia Court of Appeals (2007)
Georgia Supreme Court (2007)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2007)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2007)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (2007)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2010)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale
WonderRoot, Board of Directors, Member
Out of Hand Theater, Board of Directors, Member
Candler Park Conservancy, Board of Directors, Member
Former Chair of the Atlanta Council of Young Lawyers, Associates Campaign for Legal Services, Former Board Member of Public Trust Committee
Georgia State Bar, Former Member of Committee on Indigent Defense and Intellectual Property Trademark Subcommittee
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.