David Mayberry specializes in trademark, unfair competition and false advertising litigation. He has appeared in courtrooms across the country, including jury and bench trials, handled preliminary injunction and summary judgment motions, and argued numerous appeals. Mr. Mayberry also has handled arbitrations in trademark cases, as well as proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. He currently is co-chair of the firm's 100-lawyer Trademark & Copyright Team.
According to Chambers USA, Mr. Mayberry is a “go to for trademark litigation,” solutions-oriented” and “always seeks a practical outcome for the business in the framework of the law.”
Mr. Mayberry has been listed in Chambers as a Leading Lawyer for Business for Intellectual Property: Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets each year since 2010. He was rated Band 1 in 2017.
According to World Trademark Review, Mr. Mayberry is “is sure-footed in the courtroom. The industrious trial lawyer also knows the ins and outs of arbitration and mediation, and is able to devise innovative solutions to disputes.” He “garners the most effusive praise of almost any ranked practitioner for his sensitivity, grasp of nuance and reasoned negotiation style.”
Mr. Mayberry has been ranked in the WTR 1000 each year since 2013.
Other recognition includes:
-Top 100 Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer" by Super Lawyers magazine.
-Named by Best Lawyers in America® in 2019 for Franchise Law.
-Named to Legal 500 US in the area of Trademark Litigation.
-2018 International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers for Franchise Law.
-AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Mr. Mayberry has experience in hospitality, food & beverage, retail, fashion, apparel and banking industries.
Mr. Mayberry is a member of the bars of New York, Virginia, North Carolina and the District of Columbia.
Mr. Mayberry builds effective client service teams. For every engagement, he strives to leverage the collective experience of Kilpatrick Townsend's more than 100 person trademark team to bring the right combination of resources to bear to achieve client success in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Lead counsel for Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. against infringement claims by former licensee for breach of an exclusive license agreement that sought to remove our client’s iconic CABBAGE PATCH KIDS brand from the market for the holiday season. Defeated a preliminary injunction and then arbitrated the dispute. Arbitrator’s award of no breach of contract, and award of unpaid royalties and attorney’s fees confirmed by District Court and affirmed by Eleventh Circuit. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. v. Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. 718 Fed. Appx. 776 (11th Cir. 2017).
Lead IP counsel for fashion designer Tory Burch, LLC in suit in Delaware Chancery Court alleging that director competed unfairly against the company by launching a knockoff version of the TORY BURCH brand created with company’s confidential information and in violation of fiduciary duties and contractual obligations. J. Christopher Burch v. Tory Burch et al., No. 7921-CS (Del. Ch., C.A., filed Nov. 5, 2012).
Lead counsel for Ikea U.S., Inc. in trademark infringement action to prevent IKEA fan site from publishing advertising for competing retailers on website; argued successfully for dismissal of anti-trust trademark tying and breach of contract claims. Ikeafans, Inc. v. Ikea U.S., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00584 (E.D. Va. filed May 20, 2014).
Lead counsel for Sara Lee Corporation in trademark infringement action that LEG LOOKS infringed L’EGGS trademark; injunctive relief recommended; Fourth Circuit upheld recommendation reversing District Court and remanding case with instructions to enter a permanent injunction. Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455 (4th Cir. 1996).
Lead counsel for Hormel Foods Corporation in action to enforce covenant not to compete; successfully argued for preliminary injunction entered; recovered $2.5 million settlement. Anson v. Hormel Healthlabs, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-1463 (E.D. Va. filed December 6, 2004).
Defended Pepsi-Cola bottler in criminal antitrust price-fixing action. Jury verdict of acquittal. United States of America v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., No. A-CR-90-54, (W.D.N.C 1990).
Lead counsel for Hard Rock Cafe, International. Defended trade dress claim that lobby design for new REVERB hotel infringed plaintiff’ trade dress. Red Lion Hotels Corporation v. Hard Rock Café International (USA), Inc., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-05252( S.D.N.Y filed July 7, 2017).
Lead counsel for Marriott International, Inc. in trademark infringement action claiming all-suite hotel’s use of “Arlington Resident Court” infringed plaintiff’s rights in RESIDENCE INN service mark and associated logos. Marriott Int’l Inc. v. Sunburst Corp., No. 07-859 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 29, 2008).
Lead counsel for Opposer in Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding. Following trial, Board sustained opposition to register BALL PARK for beer due to likelihood of confusion with registered mark BALL PARK for franks). Hygrade Food Products Corp. v. CRB Co., Opp. No. 103,744 (T.T.A.B., slip op. August 4, 1999).
Lead counsel for franchisor against holdover franchisee in trademark infringement action; summary judgment granted finding likelihood of confusion and defeating laches defense; permanent and permanent injunction entered. Putt-Putt, LLC v. Constant Friendship, LLC, 936 F. Supp.2d 648 (D. Md. 2013).
Lead counsel for moving franchisor against competing franchisor. Advanced novel theory of constructive notice to enforce right of first refusal to purchase trademark; defeated motion to dismiss. Two Men and A Truck International, Inc. v. David Underwood, et. al.Civ. Action No. 1-11-cv-598 (E.D. Va. filed June 1, 2011).
Insights View All
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law, J.D. (1985) with high honors
University of North Carolina, B.A., Arts and Laws (1983) Phi Beta Kappa
North Carolina (1985)
District of Columbia (2003)
New York (2015)
Supreme Court of North Carolina (1985)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (1987)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1989)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1992)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (1996)
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (2000)
Supreme Court of Virginia (2001)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (2002)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (2002)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2003)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (2004)
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia (2005)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2009)
U.S. Court of Federal Claims (2009)
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department (2015)
American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section, Forum on Franchising, Member
American Inns of Court
District of Columbia Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section, Member
International Trademark Association, Member, Advanced TTAB Practice Forum, Past Chair
North Carolina Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section, Member
Virginia Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section, 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.