Lauren Sullins Ralls focuses her practice on counseling brand owners in the entertainment, hospitality, technology, and franchising industries on complex multi-jurisdictional trademark clearance, registration, enforcement and litigation strategies. She specializes in coordinating international enforcement and litigation for global brands.
Lauren helps companies assess the availability of trademarks for use and registration, as well as develop strategies for monitoring and enforcing trademark rights worldwide. She also counsels companies on consent and coexistence agreements.
Before joining the firm, Ms. Ralls worked in the music industry at BMG Distribution and Jive Records. Prior to entering law school, she was selected as a Robert W. Woodruff Scholar and later served as the Notes and Comments Editor for the Emory International Law Review.
Ms. Ralls was recognized in 2018 and the six years immediately preceding as a Georgia "Rising Star" in the area of Intellectual Property by Super Lawyers magazine.
The firm served as lead trial counsel for Hulu LLC, a news corporation, and NBC Universal collaborative venture in the suit related to the launch of Hulu.com. The firm successfully defeated an attempt by a Web publishing firm, Lulu Enterprises, to obtain a preliminary injunction that would have delayed the website launch of the much-anticipated Hulu.com, a website portal that offers downloadable premium video content consisting of hit television shows such as The Office, Heroes, 24, The Simpsons, Prison Break and House.
Successfully represented University of Kansas in a trial against JoeCollege.com, a retailer selling various apparel using colors and other indicia of the University. Obtained award of attorneys' fees. University of Kansas v. Larry Sinks, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23765 (D. Kan. 2008).
Serves as counsel to one of the largest music labels in the industry on trademark enforcement, prosecution and Internet issues.
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)
Agnes Scott College, B.A., Economics and Music (2001) summa cum laude
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
International Trademark Association (INTA), Member
American Bar Association, Franchise Section, Member
Southeast Forum on Franchising, Member
Georgia Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section
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.