James Trigg practices in the areas of trademark, copyright and entertainment law. His intellectual property experience includes litigation, licensing, trademark prosecution, and general trademark and copyright counseling. His practice has developed a particular focus on copyright and trademark issues arising in the context of the Internet, including matters implicating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, domain name disputes and social media. Mr.Trigg has represented major companies, as well as recording artists, in music copyright litigation, and he also has advised an array of entertainers and creators on domestic and international trademark and branding issues. A former professional musician, Mr. Trigg regularly draws on this background when litigating music copyright cases and in negotiating licenses both for artists and for parties desiring to use musical works in advertising and in other contexts.
Mr. Trigg was named by The Legal 500 as a “Top Regional Copyright Lawyer” in 2007 and he was recommended by Legal 500 US in the area of Copyright in 2015 and the four years immediately preceding. Mr. Trigg was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Law in 2018 and the seven years immediately preceding. He was also named a 2013 "Atlanta Lawyer of the Year" in the area of Copyright Law by The Best Lawyers in America®. Mr. Trigg was recognized as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in the area of Intellectual Property in 2017 and the seven years immediately preceding by Super Lawyers magazine. He is listed among Georgia Trend's 2012 "Legal Elite" in the area of Entertainment/Sports Law. He was named an "IP Star" in 2017 and the four years immediately preceding by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. Mr. Trigg was listed in the 2018 and the four immediately preceding editions of World Trademark Review 1000 – The World's Leading Trademark Professionals. He is a recipient of the 2014 Client Choice Award USA & Canada in the Intellectual Property – Copyright category for Georgia from Lexology and the International Law Office (ILO). Mr. Trigg is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.
The firm represented numerous trademark owners in domain name dispute actions arising under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Representative reported decisions include: (1) The Weather Channel v. Versata Software, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0548 (June 23, 2009) (secured transfer of domain name <weatherchannelkids.com>); (2) Arizona Bd. of Regents v. DNS Admin, Nevis Domains, WIPO Case No. D2008-1543 (Dec. 9, 2008) (secured transfer of domain name <arizonawildcats.com>); (3) Willis v. NetHollywood, WIPO Case No. D2004-1030 (Feb. 17, 2004) (secured transfer of domain name <alleewillis.com>); (4) Federal Cartridge Co. v. Madmouse Communications, WIPO Case No. D2001-0756 (secured transfer of domain names <federalcartridge.net> and <federalcartridge.org>); and (5) Chef America, Inc. v. Murray, WIPO Case No. D2000-1481 (Feb. 13, 2001) (secured transfer of domain name <hot-pockets.com>).
The firm counsels Ian Falconer Ink Unlimited Inc., owner of the well-known OLIVIA children's book and television property, on domestic and international trademark portfolio issues, including search clearances, trademark registration, and enforcement.
The firm advises leading international carpet manufacturer Interface, Inc. on matters involving trademark clearance, trademark portfolio management, and trademark enforcement, as well as providing counsel on copyright and trademark issues arising in the context of online and print media marketing.
Represent internationally known supermodel in dispute concerning third party misappropriation of her name for use on products and in advertising in the State of California.
The firm provides general trademark prosecution and counseling services to the world-renowned musical group, R.E.M. Services include overseeing an international trademark registration portfolio for the group, as well as assisting the band with trademark dispute and enforcement issues.
The firm drafts and negotiates music copyright licenses and other rights clearances for two major international apparel companies in connection with their use of music in advertising and promotional campaigns.
The firm advises companies on issues concerning enforcement of rights in copyrighted works created prior to the January 1, 1978 effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act, and concerning work for hire and renewal issues arising from proposed reproduction and distribution of pre-1978 copyrights.
Kilpatrick Townsend represents Interface, Inc., the largest carpet tile manufacturer worldwide. Recent highlights include:
- Kilpatrick Townsend patented every aspect of SKY-TILES®, Interface’s revolutionary airplane carpet tiles, including the tiles, the manufacturing method, and the installation method. With a robust patent family in place, Interface introduced SKY-TILES® to the airline industry and has since outfitted most of Southwest Airline’s fleet.
- The firm also advises Interface, Inc. on matters involving trademark clearance, trademark portfolio management, and trademark enforcement, as well as providing counsel on copyright and trademark issues arising in the context of carpet design and online and print media marketing.
The firm successfully defended LaFace Records and So So Def Productions in a series of lawsuits asserting copyright infringement and other claims relating to pre-1972 musical sound recordings. Representation resulted in dismissal of suit and award of defendants' attorneys' fees.
Fantasy, Inc. v. LaFace Records, 43 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1700 (N.D. Cal. 1997); Fantasy, Inc. v. LaFace Records, 43 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1959 (N.D. Cal. 1997); Fantasy v. LaFace Records, 49 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1148 (E.D. Cal. 1998).
Defended Sony Music Entertainment Inc., So So Def Productions and other defendants in a series of lawsuits asserting copyright infringement and other claims relating to pre-1972 musical sound recordings. Representation resulted in dismissal of suit and award of defendants' attorneys' fees.
Cooper v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., et al., 2002 WL 391693 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2002).
Insights View All
University of Virginia School of Law, J.D. (1992)
Princeton University, A.B. (1988)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Supreme Court of Georgia
The Copyright Society of the U.S.A., Member and Former Chairperson of the Southeast Chapter
International Trademark Association, Member
University of Georgia School of Law, Adjunct Professor of Trademark and Entertainment Law
Art Papers, Board Member
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.