Lippitt O'Keefe, PLLC

06/05/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

Patagonia, a world-famous outdoor apparel brand known for its commitment to environmentalism, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Wyn Wiley, a drag queen who goes by the stage name Pattie Gonia.

Pattie Gonia, who has nearly two million followers on Instagram alone, self describes as a drag queen, climate activist, and community organizer. She adopted her stage name in 2018. On January 21, 2026, Patagonia filed a Complaint against the internet personality alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition. The introduction of the Complaint explains “Patagonia supports advocacy and activism that promote the environment and inclusion in the outdoors, central to Pattie Gonia’s ostensible mission.”

The Complaint further explains that the parties had previously reached an agreement about how Pattie Gonia’s “advocacy work might continue in a way that would not interfere with Patagonia’s brand.” According to the Complaint, in 2022 Pattie Gonia agreed to “respect Patagonia’s trademark rights” and to refrain from selling Pattie Gonia-branded products. However, the working relationship between the parties began to deteriorate when Pattie Gonia filed a trademark application shortly after the drag queen began selling branded merchandise in late 2024. Pattie Gonia’s application seeks to register her stage name as the source of a wide range of products and services including apparel and environmental advocacy.

Patagonia alleges that Pattie Gonia still sells Pattie Gonia-branded content and continues to use and display Patagonia’s logo, despite attempts to ameliorate the situation outside of litigation. The filing contains examples of consumer confusion, including one comment on Pattie Gonia’s social media profile that states “Love you patagonia, you’re amazing. Thank you for protecting our parks.”

Patagonia has asked that the Court issue an injunction against Pattie Gonia’s further use of the Pattie Gonia trademark, as well as nominal damages in the amount of $1.00, along with attorneys’ fees, which are rarely granted in the United States.

The lawsuit has sparked fierce debate online with some spectators characterizing the legal dispute as a David vs Goliath situation while others argue that it is simply trademark law functioning exactly as intended. Pattie Gonia has stated on social media “This is not a brand conflict. This is a corporation trying to erase an activist. This is how corporations bully individuals who cannot match their resources.”

Patagonia issued a statement explaining “This matter is not about seeking financial gain, nor is it about challenging anyone’s identity or right to advocacy, protest, or creative expression. The last thing we wanted was a legal fight with someone who shares our values, but we must protect our business and employees.”

The climate activist drag queen is accusing Patagonia of going against its "core mission."

05/20/2026

The More You Know:

On May 12, 2026, Zillow, an online real estate marketplace, filed a lawsuit against Compass, one of the largest residential real estate brokerages. This new lawsuit adds to a preexisting legal showdown between the two companies and to the overall legal drama that has dominated the real estate industry for the past few years.

Back in June 2025, Compass sued Zillow alleging that the virtual marketplace violated antitrust laws by enacting a policy that required publicly marketed listings to be published on the platform within one business day. The policy, which was modeled after the National Association of Realtor’s Clear Cooperation Policy, was intended to deter private, “pocket listings” (for more information on the Compass Complaint, see https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DuqacnEhB/).

In February 2026, the Court denied Compass’s request for a preliminary injunction after it found that the brokerage had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its antitrust claims. On March 20, 2026, Compass voluntarily dismissed the Complaint shortly after Zillow announced a new feature “Zillow Preview,” which allows brokerages to pre-market listings before they hit the active market.

Now, Zillow alleges that Compass and Midwest Real Estate Data LLC (“MRED”), an MLS that covers the Chicago area, have harmed competition by hiding real estate listings behind a “velvet rope” in a private listing network. The Complaint goes on to allege that the Defendants conspired to cut off Zillow’s access to “all of the real estate listings controlled by MRED and Compass in Chicagoland … in a naked effort to coerce pro-transparency competitors to abandon their business models.”

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a horizontal group boycott to restrain trade. Zillow also alleges that MRED has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully maintaining and abusing its monopoly power in the Chicago area.

On May 18, 2026, Zillow filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction asking that the Court prevent MRED from terminating the Chicago listing data while the case proceeds. However, on May 20, 2026, MRED announced that it has suspended Zillow’s access to its data feeds stating that Zillow removed nine listings that were allegedly marketed lawfully under its rules. Zillow issued a statement declaring “Chicagoland home buyers and sellers have far worse access to the housing market than they had yesterday, because their local MLS decided one megabrokerage’s profits mattered more than their ability to achieve the American Dream.”

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/mred-suspends-zillow-feed/

Zillow lost licensed MRED listing data for Zillow and Trulia, about 43,000 active listings, as injunction and arbitration motions proceed.

05/06/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

Buc-ee’s is once again suing a competing convenience store chain for alleged trademark infringement.

On May 1, 2026, Buc-ee’s filed a lawsuit against Teddy’s Market, a convenience store chain that currently operates exclusively in Georgia. At this time, Teddy’s only has two stores, both of which are north of Atlanta, with plans to open a third in Decatur. Teddy’s logo features a light brown cartoon bear dressed in a blue hoodie and blue baseball cap.

The Complaint alleges that Teddy’s has created an “Infringing Brand Identity” by pairing its name with “an anthropomorphic animal mascot depicted through a recurring logo, in-store renderings, and even a store-entrance statue … in connection with their convenience store and retail services.” Buc-ee’s further characterizes Teddy’s bear as a “smiling animal that closely resembles a beaver, wearing a hat, with white specular highlights on its eyes, with a solid black nose with a single white specular highlight, showing a glimpse of a red/pink tongue, and with lighter coloration around its mouth.”

The Complaint further alleges that the likelihood of consumer confusion, a key element of a claim for trademark infringement, “is further exacerbated by the circumstances in which the Teddy’s logo is encountered by consumers.” Buc-ee’s argues that most consumers who encounter the allegedly infringing logo will be drivers who can only briefly glance at the logo from a distance, which means consumers cannot “meaningfully assess” whether Teddy’s is associated with Buc-ee’s until they are actually at the store – “at which point it would be highly unlikely for consumers to change their purchasing decisions or seek out a different source for the relevant services.”

In addition to federal and state claims of trademark infringement, Buc-ee’s alleges unfair competition, unjust enrichment, trademark dilution, and violation of the Georgia Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Buc-ee’s filed a similar infringement lawsuit against another convenience store chain called Mickey’s in February 2026 (for more on this see https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1KNWkMSmKM/). On April 22, 2026, Mickey’s filed an Answer that opens with “[t]his case asks a simple question: can a large national chain that is expanding into Ohio use meritless trademark litigation as a tool to force out a local business that has operated in Ohio for decades?” Mickey’s asserted a counterclaim against Buc-ee’s for unfair competition based on malicious litigation, or alternatively, trademark infringement.

What do you think? Is the litigation initiated by Buc-ee’s a valiant effort to protect its intellectual property or is it a form of bullying under the guise of the law that is intended to suppress competition?

https://www.ajc.com/news/2026/05/buc-ees-sues-georgia-competitor-with-confusingly-similar-brand/

In a fight over cartoon animal mascots, Texas-based convenience store chain Buc-ee's is suing Georgia competitor Teddy's Market for trademark infringement.

05/01/2026

The More You Know:

On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Louisiana v Callais, a highly contentious case that centers on racial gerrymandering and the viability of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”).

In 2022, Louisiana drew new congressional districts after the 2020 census illustrated that there had been population shifts in the state. Similar to the former map, which was originally adopted in 2013, the new map included only one district in which black voters represented a majority of the voting-age population. For context, Louisiana has six congressional districts, and its population is roughly 31% black.

Shortly after the new map was enacted, civil rights groups, including the Louisiana NAACP, and black Louisiana voters filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State of Louisiana alleging that the map violates the VRA by “packing” large numbers of black voters into a single congressional district and “cracking” the remaining black voters among the five remaining districts. The Complaint alleges that this practice has led to the dilution of black votes and black candidates “being chronically underrepresented in public office in the state.” The Plaintiffs asked that the Secretary of State adopt a “lawful congressional redistricting plan” that complies with the VRA by providing for two congressional districts in which black Louisianians have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice (“opportunity districts”).

The District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana found that the new map likely violated the VRA and issued a preliminary injunction requiring that the state implement a new map before the 2022 election. After a few procedural delays, Louisiana enacted a new map in 2024 that added an additional majority black district.

Within a matter of days, a group of non-black Louisiana voters filed a lawsuit alleging that the state “engaged in explicit, racial segregation of voters and intentional discrimination against voters based on race” in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Looking at the map’s irregular and “bizarre” boundaries, which is not exactly an atypical result of gerrymandering, the Western District of Louisiana held that the map created a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The District Court’s decision was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. In an opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court framed the issue as whether “compliance with the [VRA] may justify what the Constitution generally condemns: the use of race as a basis for government action.” After deciding that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review, the Court decided that compliance with the VRA cannot be considered a compelling interest that can justify racial discrimination. The Court further clarified that the drawing of districts along partisan lines is a permissible practice under the Constitution because partisan advantage is a race-neutral aim.

Justice Kagan authored a lengthy dissent joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson. The dissent calls the Court’s opinion “understated, even antiseptic” and argues that now “a State can, without legal consequences, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power.”

Some legal spectators have called the Court’s decision a “death blow” to the VRA and have posited that it will prove “devastating for communities of color and the candidates they support.” President Trump has lauded the decision.

In a 6-3 ruling, the justices narrowed how a key provision of the Voting Rights Act can be enforced.

04/24/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

The leader of an Oregon disaster relief nonprofit is alleged to have embezzled hundreds of thousands of dollars having spent the stolen funds on personal expenditures, including visits to the casino and strip club.

On April 16, 2026, Dan Rayfield, the Oregon Attorney General, and the Oregon Department of the State Fire Marshal (“OSFM”) filed a lawsuit against Marcus Brooks, the executive director, president, and secretary of Cascade Relief Team (“CRT”).

Brooks incorporated CRT in September 2020 during an unprecedented wildfire season in Oregon. Shortly thereafter, CRT was granted 501(c)(3) status. The lawsuit was filed after the Oregon Department of Justice ("ODOJ") initiated an investigation into CRT only to find out that it was a “sham charitable organization.”

CRT received donations from Oregonians as well as funds from government contracts, however, a portion of this revenue went unaccounted for. Allegedly, Brooks did not keep records and once CRT received funds, Brooks stopped filing required financial reports, end-of-year reports, and supporting documents. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Brooks, who was “in total and complete control” of CRT, would routinely open bank accounts in CRT’s name just to run them dry.

In 2023, Brooks allegedly unexpectedly fired CRT staff because the organization could not meet its payroll obligations, but he never informed donors or charitable beneficiaries that CRT collapsed. This prompted the ODOJ to subpoena financial institutions to obtain financial records for CRT after Brooks failed to respond to a request to produce documents. The ODOJ found “an organization in almost complete financial chaos that has primarily operated for the benefit of” Brooks.

The Complaint alleges that Brooks’s conduct generated a loss of more than $836,781.00. Brooks allegedly diverted charitable dollars to “gamble at casinos, visit a strip club, buy alcohol, vacation around the country (including stops at Disneyland and vacation rentals in Florida), pay rent and bills, and purchase vehicles.”

Rayfield filed a derivative action on behalf of CRT pursuant to an Oregon statute that allows the Attorney General to bring a proceeding on behalf of a public benefit corporation. The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, ultra vires conduct, breach of contract, and civil fraud. Rayfield has requested that the court enjoin Brooks from serving as a charitable fiduciary, order him to repay the charitable assets that he diverted or wasted, dissolve CRT, and order that OSFM may pierce the corporate veil of CRT so that it may pursue relief from Brooks directly.

Brooks has yet to comment on the lawsuit. He has not yet been charged criminally but the ODOJ stated that it is “exploring all avenues of investigation.”

The leader of an Oregon-based nonprofit that raised money for wildfire victims was accused of spending the money on strip clubs and casino visits.

04/14/2026

The More You Know:

On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles jury found Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, liable for negligence. The verdict could be a watershed moment for social media users who allege physical injury by the social media platforms they interact with.

The five-week long “bellwether trial” began in January as a test case to determine whether the novel legal arguments presented against the social media entities could prevail. The case is part of a Joint Council Coordination Proceeding (“JCCP”) in California, which operates similar to federal multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). Both procedures are designed to consolidate complex civil cases that share common questions of fact or law.

The test case was brought by a twenty-year-old woman referred to as K.G.M. who alleged that she became addicted to social media applications controlled by the defendants beginning when she was six years old. This addiction allegedly led her to suffer depression, anxiety, self-harm, and body dysmorphia. In addition to Meta and Google, the Complaint named Snapchat and TikTok both of which settled with the plaintiff before trial.

At trial, K.G.M argued that certain features of the social media apps, such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and beauty filters, were designed to be addictive, particularly for children. Internal documents from the companies obtained during discovery proved to be damning. An internal message from an Instagram employee stated “[w]e’re basically pushers … We’re causing reward deficit disorder, because people are binging on Instagram so much they can’t feel the reward.” Another document read “[t]he goal is not viewership, it’s viewer addiction.”

Meta and Google argued that K.G.M’s mental suffering could be attributed to her tumultuous upbringing rather than social media. Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, testified during the trial that the company has prioritized user safety and acted in a “reasonable way.”

The jury found that the companies were negligent in the design of Instagram and YouTube and that they failed to warn users about possible dangers. The jury awarded a combined $6 million in damages. K.G.M will receive $3 million in compensatory damages as well as $3 million in punitive damages after the jury found that the companies “acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.”

The decision was met with excitement outside of the courthouse where dozens of parents gathered with photos of their late children whom they allege were victims of social media addiction.

Both companies plan to appeal. Additional JCCP trials and other federal trials alleging similar claims against the companies are slated to begin in June and July 2026.

A woman has been awarded $6m in a verdict that could have implications for hundreds of other cases in the US.

04/07/2026

Case Dismissed! On March 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by Lippitt O’Keefe, PLLC on behalf of its client Realcomp II.

On August 12, 2024, following a major antitrust upheaval in the real estate industry, three individuals filed a Class Action Complaint against the National Association of REALTORS® (“NAR”), Michigan Association of REALTORS®, the Grosse Pointe Board of REALTORS®, Greater Metropolitan Association of REALTORS®, North Oakland County Board of REALTORS®, and Realcomp II.

The Complaint, which was amended in November 2024, alleged that the Defendants violated antitrust laws by requiring that real estate licensees obtain REALTOR® status if they wish to access the multiple listing service (“MLS”) managed by Realcomp. The Complaint alleged violations of the Michigan Anti-Trust Reform Act, as well as violations of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a core federal antitrust law that prohibits the restraint of trade and monopolization, respectively.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2025. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim by relying on vague, conclusory, and implausible factual allegations. The Motion explained that the Plaintiffs largely took issue with practice changes that were implemented by NAR after certain conduct was found by a jury to be anticompetitive in unrelated litigation.

Over a year after it was filed, the Court granted the Motion finding that the Plaintiffs failed to plead a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. The Court found that there is no Section 1 unlawful restraint on trade where a voluntary trade organization simply requires membership to access the benefits of an MLS. As for the Section 2 allegations, the Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to show that the Defendants willfully acquired monopoly power through anticompetitive conduct. In fact, the Court reasoned that restricting MLS access to REALTORS® may actually promote competition because the MLS provides consumers with aggregated, streamlined information.

The ruling represents a significant victory for the REALTOR® and MLS communities, and the decision will have national implications. The dismissal has already been referenced in at least one case coming out of the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The Complaint was dismissed in its entirety against all Defendants. Lippitt O’Keefe attorneys Brian O’Keefe, Alexander Blum, Noah Nathan and Carey Robinson represented Realcomp alongside Harvey Weingarden (Of Counsel).

Lippitt O’Keefe would like to recognize the hard work of all of its co-counsel, including Kimberly Scott and Larry Saylor at Miller Canfield, Jared Roberts at Fraser Trebilcock, David DeVine and Sheldon Klein at Butzel Long, James Witham and Richard Linnell at Linnell & Associates PLLC, and finally Jaclyn Phillips, Christopher Curran, Kathryn Mims, and Amanda Frame at White & Case.

03/24/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

Joseph Edgar Foreman, better known as rapper “Afroman,” has prevailed in a highly publicized lawsuit brought against him by local police officers.

In August 2022, officers from the Adams County Sheriff’s Office in Ohio raided Afroman’s home. The raid was conducted pursuant to a search warrant after a confidential informant accused Afroman of drug trafficking and kidnapping women to keep in his basement. During the raid, Afroman’s wife recorded officers and home security cameras captured officers breaking down doors, rummaging through Afroman’s property, and attempting to disconnect the cameras. Afroman was not home during the raid, but his wife along with his two younger children were reportedly shaken up by the intrusion. The police did not find any evidence and no charges were filed against Afroman.

Following the raid, Afroman decided to pursue the “smartest, most peaceful solution.” In December 2022, he released a few music videos which used the security camera footage of the raid. Afroman stated of the officers featured in the music videos “the only thing I could come up with was make a funny rap song about them and make some money, use the money to pay for the damages they did and move on.” One of the music videos is titled “Lemon Pound Cake” and it is currently ranked #14 in the top music video category on YouTube. The video features an Adams County officer with his gun drawn glancing at, you guessed it, a lemon pound cake on Afroman’s kitchen counter.

In January 2023, Afroman released an album titled “Lemon Pound Cake” that includes other songs such as “Why You Disconnecting My Video Camera” and “Will You Help Me Repair My Door.” In March 2023, individuals from the Adams County Sheriff’s Office filed a civil lawsuit against Afroman alleging various counts of invasion of privacy and unauthorized use of an individual's persona in violation of Ohio law. The officers later amended their Complaint to allege defamation. The Complaint alleged that as a result of Afroman’s actions, the officers “have been subjected to ridicule.” The officers requested an injunction and $3.9 million in damages.

Afroman responded to the Complaint arguing that his music was protected by the First Amendment and that officers “are using the judicial system to quell protected speech that they do not agree with.” The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) submitted an Amicus Brief stating that the case is a “meritless effort to use a lawsuit to silence criticism.”

On March 18, 2026, a jury found in favor of Afroman on all surviving counts. Sporting an American flag suit, tie, and sunglasses, Afroman stated to reporters “I didn’t win, America won. America still has freedom of speech. It’s still for the people, by the people.” The lawsuit went viral on social media with many commentators suggesting that the officers “revived” Afroman’s career.

“Lemon Pound Cake” has dethroned Afroman’s other hits, including “Crazy Rap (C**t 45 & 2 Zig Zags)” and “Because I Got High.”

The "Because I Got High" rapper made waves in 2023 with the album and song "Lemon Pound Cake," using home video to mock a police raid on his Ohio home. The deputies lost their civil suit against him.

03/21/2026

The More You Know:

On March 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous Opinion in favor of a street preacher seeking relief from an allegedly unconstitutional city ordinance.

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian “who believes that sharing his religious views with fellow citizens is an important part of exercising his faith.” Olivier and some of his fellow churchgoers would occasionally stand outside of the Brandon Amphitheater in Brandon, Mississippi with bullhorns - used to call amphitheater attendees “wh**es,” “Jezebels," and "sissies" - as well as signs that displayed religious messages.

In 2019, the City of Brandon adopted an ordinance requiring that protestors outside of the amphitheater stay within a “designated protest area.” In 2021, Olivier willfully violated the ordinance and was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to pay a $304 fine. Olivier paid the fine and successfully completed his probation but later filed a 42 USC §1983 lawsuit against the City alleging that the ordinance violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Olivier sought an injunction preventing the City from enforcing the ordinance in the future, however, he did not seek reversal of his prior conviction for violating the ordinance.

The District Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in a 1994 case called Heck v Humphrey barred Olivier’s lawsuit. In Heck, the Court held that a request for damages tied to a conviction that has not been invalidated is not cognizable under §1983 because such a judgment would “necessarily imply the invalidity” of the conviction. In Olivier’s case, the District Court found a person previously convicted of violating a statute cannot challenge its constitutionality under §1983 because success in the suit would cast doubt on the prior conviction’s correctness. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed in favor of Olivier finding that Heck does not bar a §1983 lawsuit seeking “purely prospective relief.” In other words, Olivier can pursue his lawsuit seeking to prevent enforcement of the ordinance in the future. The Court stated that without the ability to pursue forward-looking relief under §1983, Olivier would have to face the choice to “flout the law and risk another prosecution, or else forgo speech he believes is constitutionally protected.” Note that the Court did not decide whether the City ordinance itself is constitutional.

An evangelical street preacher may challenge a Mississippi city ordinance restricting where protests may occur notwithstanding his prior conviction under the law, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously.

03/17/2026

A Shameless Look at the Law:

Can a taco restaurant be held liable for the spiciness of its sauces? Under the following circumstances, no.

In October 2024, Faycal Manz, a German citizen, filed a lawsuit against Los Tacos No. 1, a beloved taqueria in New York City. Manz alleged that when he visited the restaurant in August 2024, he (regrettably) used the business’s self-service sauce station for the three tacos he purchased. Manz explains in the Complaint “[a]s I had no idea how dangerous these sauces could be or which ingredients are put in the sauces, I started putting a lot of these sauces inside my tacos.”

The Complaint, which was filed pro se, alleges that Manz suffered health problems including mouth/tongue blisters due to the spice level of the sauce. Manz alleged that the taqueria “failed to provide adequate warnings about the spiciness of the sauces” rendering the restaurant liable under a “premises liability ‘failure to warn’” theory. In requesting $100,000 USD in damages, Manz also alleged that he suffered emotional distress and loss of enjoyment during his “very short trip” to New York City.

In another filing, Manz alleged that he has “practically a spice intolerance due to a very sensitive gastrointestinal tract.” Throughout the litigation, Manz expanded his alleged causes of action to include negligence, gross negligence, and a claim under the New York General Business Law.

The parties filed competing Motions for Summary Judgment in July 2025. Finally, on February 17, 2026, the Court granted summary judgment for Los Tacos and denied Manz’s Motion finding that his claims “fail as matter of law.” The Court explained that the negligence claims fail because “no jury could conclude that Los Tacos had a duty to warn Mr. Manz of the inherent spice present in their salsa.” The Order states “[i]n fact, when it comes to salsa, the spice is often the point.” The Court added that a “reasonable person with Mr. Manz’s characteristics could have easily discovered that the salsa at Los Tacos was spicy.”

Manz filed two other lawsuits stemming from his six-day vacation to NYC. In addition to the aforementioned lawsuit, Manz filed suit against Walmart alleging national origin discrimination because Walmart’s public Wi-Fi network requires a user to enter a U.S. phone number. The Walmart case was dismissed in July 2025. Manz is also involved in an ongoing lawsuit against the City of New York alleging a denial of civil rights due to the New York Police Department’s inability to return calls to foreign cell phone numbers.

Germany is considered the most litigious county in the world.

"Mexican food, and more specifically, salsa, is often spicy," U.S. District Judge Dale Ho wrote in his opinion.