Raj Abhyanker’s Firm Ordered to Pay $90k+ for Ill-Advised Trademark Enforcement Lawsuit–LegalForce v. LawFirms

In one of Judge Alsup’s last rulings before he retired, after a bench trial he rejected LegalForce’s trademark claims over the LawFirms logo (the first logo was pre-litigation; the defendant switched to the second logo during the litigation).

(Reminder: LegalForce runs Trademarkia).

It was a classic Judge Alsup move. The plaintiff’s dubious assertions survived a motion to dismiss, but Judge Alsup hammered the plaintiff when its proof ultimately didn’t support its claims. In my prior blog post, I wrote:

This case cries out for a trademark fee shift to the defense. That would be the appropriate consequence for forcing a 4-day trial and a 31 page opinion that repeatedly triggered the “what are we doing here?” meme. However, because the judge wasn’t pleased with the defense’s conduct either, the judge might decide to let each party marinate in the litigation choices they made.

Judge Alsup retired before resolving the fee request, so Judge Corley drew the short straw to resolve this stinker. She awards the defense over $90k in fees and costs–a sizable fee shift, but a trivial fraction of the alleged $1.3M in defense costs.

* * *

Judge Corley has tart words for both sides:

Plaintiff’s case became exceptional because Plaintiff alleged facts it knew to be false, discovered other facts demonstrating its case was meritless, took steps to obscure those facts, and continued to litigate its action. However, Defendant’s response was also exceptional. Defendant frivolously delayed discovery which would have removed any doubt Plaintiff’s case was meritless, violated local rules and court orders repeatedly in ways that also delayed resolution, and failed to move for summary judgment even after it had evidence to dispose of Plaintiff’s claims. So, only a small fraction of Defendant’s nearly $1.3 million in fees sought was reasonably incurred.

A pox on both sides’ houses?

One part of Judge Corley’s recitations took my breath away:

Plaintiff argues it “might have continued litigating just to be a thorn” but “ceased the fight once management made an executive decision in view of new facts.” But Plaintiff never ceased litigating; instead, Plaintiff insisted on trial and is appealing.

Say what? Continuing to litigate “just to be a thorn” seemingly violates multiple rules of professional conduct. I wonder if the applicable state bars are aware of this statement?

Judge Corley summarizes:

Plaintiff’s claims appeared just a bit better than meritless from the start, even when buttressed by Plaintiff’s knowingly false allegations. And Plaintiff’s claims cratered as the evidence came in. By February 13, 2025, Plaintiff had received the results of its second consumer survey showing no material likelihood of confusion, even under circumstances it had constructed. And by February 15, 2025, Plaintiff had received and pressure-tested Defendant’s productions showing Defendant had referred nobody to trademark lawyers during the period it used the accused mark. Other dissimilarities between business lines, marketing channels, and the marks were—at least by then—clear. The case was meritless, and Plaintiff knew or should have known it by February 15, 2025….

as the merits of Plaintiff’s case plummeted, Plaintiff’s misconduct escalated, including Plaintiff’s overstating or obscuring the merits to maintain its case…So, Plaintiff’s litigation was infected by bad faith at least after February 15, 2025.

Ordinarily, in plaintiff benchslaps like this, the defense will get a significant fee shift. But Judge Corley has many issues with the defense counsels’ choices, especially the decision not to seek summary judgment and instead let the case proceed to trial:

Because Defendant would not pay a $23,522 bill to end the action with certainty, or the cost to file a summary judgment motion, Defendant decided to incur around $550,000 in charges with the hopes of eventually ending the litigation. Assuming Defendant sought to limit costs, its approach makes no sense. Alternatively, assuming Defendant sought to vindicate its rights, its approach also made no sense; the proposed dismissal or a summary judgment motion would have sufficed.

If the defense’s $1.3M defense costs are correct, the fee shift is about 5% of its spend. That doesn’t sound like a good economic deal to me. And the plaintiff has already appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, so both parties seemed destined to keep spending/wasting even more time and money on each other. Perhaps the $90k fee and cost shift provides enough clarity to the parties to price their exits.

* * *

Judge Corley ends her opinion with an exasperated plea/fortune cookie message:

“Both sides are cautioned to reflect before making any further filing.”

[It reminded me of Judge Kozinski’s closing line from Mattel v. MCA (the Barbie Girl case): “The parties are advised to chill.”]

Judge Corley offers some sage advice. Will the parties heed it? Or will they fall back into old habits? #Pause #Breathe #Reflect #Settle

Case Citation: LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. MH Sub I, LLC, 2026 WL 1329654 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2026). Defense counsel is Steven A. Schuman of Leonard, Dicker & Schreiber LLP and Wendy Evelyn Giberti.