Lawyers

JAMES C. HILDEBRAND

Partner — Los Angeles

EXPERIENCE

James C. Hildebrand is a partner in Ropers Majeski’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice.  His practice focuses on copyright, trademark, trade secret, and right of publicity litigation and licensing matters.  Mr. Hildebrand is part of a seven attorney intellectual property litigation team based in the Los Angeles office and has represented a wide range of clients including clients in the consumer products, manufacturing, retail, garment, jewelry, financial, and entertainment industries.  He has handled a number of appeals.

Mr. Hildebrand graduated from Southwestern University School of Law, cum laude, and was Research Editor of the Southwestern Law Review.

Mr. Hildebrand’s significant litigation experience includes:

Mr. Hildebrand represented a medical facility when it was sued in federal court for infringing the plaintiff’s alleged “Laser Eye Center” trademark.  After filing a motion to have the court summarily adjudicate that the term “laser eye center” was not protectable as a trademark because analysis of the use of the term showed that it had become a generic description for medical facilities which provide laser eye surgery, the case settled on terms favorable to the client.

Mr. Hildebrand represented a start-up company in the food service industry when it was sued for trade name and trade dress infringement by the most trendy and popular competitor in the industry.  The plaintiff alleged that the client’s trade name and interior décor were too similar to its name and décor and that this misled consumers into thinking that the client’s stores were associated with or sponsored by the plaintiff.  The case was resolved by an agreement to address particular aspects of the name and décor in question in a manner that was acceptable to both parties.

Mr. Hildebrand represented an aerospace fastener manufacturer in an action by a former subsidiary following a complex series of changes in ownership and transfers of intellectual property rights.  The former subsidiary alleged that the client infringed certain copyrights and trademarks after the termination of a license granting the client the right to use of the intellectual property.  One of the many interesting issues in the case concerned the extent to which the plaintiff could control the right to manufacture utilitarian articles based on its ownership of copyrights on the approved technical drawings used to manufacture the articles.

Mr. Hildebrand represented a distributor of pool supplies in an action by a manufacturer of pool cleaning equipment for trade dress infringement.  The manufacturer had a utility patent on a manual pool cleaning device and when the patent expired the client began distributing a similar product.  After preparing a motion for summary judgment showing that every feature and configuration of features of the product contributed to its function and thus could not be protected as a trademark, the manufacturer settled the case.