The Law Spot

Supporting Entrepreneurs and Families
Business | Intellectual Property | Estate Planning

Protecting innovation and creativity. Gray PLLC.

With over a decade of intellectual property and business law experience, Melissa has assisted hundreds of clients in protecting valuable assets through contracts, trademark filings, and general business needs. Ranging from startups to Fortune 500 companies, she can offer valuable, effective, and practical advice to clients at any stage of their business journey. Disclaimer: Nothing on this page,

or in links provided on this page, constitutes legal advice or the practice of law. Nor does viewing this page form an attorney/client relationship between you and Melissa H. All visitors should consult with a qualified legal professional regarding their individual questions, needs, or issues that may be of concern. We are not responsible for any action taken by a reader based upon any information on this site. All of the content on this site is for general informational and educational purposes only. Melissa Gray is licensed to practice law in Florida and Texas.

06/02/2026

A special milestone this year—I’ve been named to D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas for 2026, marking my fifth appearance on the list.

Being recognized in 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025, and now 2026 is something I’m truly grateful for. Thank you to my clients, colleagues, and everyone who continues to place their trust in me and our team.

Here’s to continuing the work that makes these moments possible.

05/29/2026

McDonald’s is once again attempting to secure trademark protection for the phrase “Extra Value Meal,” after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application on grounds that the term is too generic.

The USPTO’s position is that the phrase simply describes a discounted bundled meal commonly offered across the fast-food industry, rather than functioning as a distinctive brand identifier tied exclusively to McDonald’s.

The dispute highlights a recurring issue in trademark law—when widely used marketing language stops being seen as a brand signal and starts being viewed as part of everyday commercial vocabulary.

McDonald’s has used the term for decades, but the challenge now is evidentiary: proving that consumers still associate “Extra Value Meal” specifically with the McDonald’s brand.

Without that showing of acquired distinctiveness, the phrase risks remaining in the public domain for competitors to use freely.

The case underscores a broader reality for brands: long-term marketing use does not automatically guarantee long-term legal protection.

05/27/2026

We’re moving into a new space! ⚖️

This is where it’s happening—our future office currently under renovation. We’re sharing this early look as the space begins to take shape, step by step.

We can’t wait to show you the finished space—stay tuned for the reveal.

05/25/2026

Taking a moment today to reflect, honor, and remember.

05/22/2026

Behind the friendly beaver mascot is a very aggressive trademark strategy.

Buc-ee's has been known to challenge businesses using cartoon mascots that resemble its famous cap-wearing beaver.

Over the years, some competitors have settled, while others have been forced to rebrand or disappear altogether.

While protecting a brand is important, it raises an interesting question:

How far should trademark enforcement go?

Is this the gold standard of intellectual property protection…
or does it give one company too much control over cartoon mascots?

05/20/2026

Big changes are happening for our team. 🏢

We’re preparing a new space that reflects our growth and the work we do every day.

Stay tuned — we can’t wait to share it with you.

05/19/2026

I had a call with a Dallas founder that started pretty casually.

He said, “We’re about to sign a retail deal—everything’s good on our end, just standard paperwork.”

I asked one question:
“Is your trademark registered with the USPTO?”

There was a pause.

Then he said, “We’ve been using the name for years… do we still need that?”

That’s usually where things shift.

Because what he thought was a formality turned out to be the exact thing the retailer required before moving forward.

The deal didn’t fall apart—but it stopped until the brand was cleared properly.

And what struck me wasn’t the legal issue. It was how close everything came to moving forward without it.

05/18/2026

In March 2026, CrowdStrike, Inc. filed a federal trademark infringement suit against AiStrike Inc. over the use of the “-Strike” branding in the cybersecurity space.

The allegation is straightforward—but important:

When two companies operate in the same technical market, even a shared naming structure can raise a likelihood of confusion issue under the Lanham Act.

CrowdStrike argues that:

“AiStrike” adopts a confusingly similar commercial impression
Both parties operate in AI-driven cybersecurity services
The naming convention risks trading on established goodwill

The relief sought includes an injunction and damages.

What makes this case interesting is not the novelty of the dispute—but the pattern:

We’re seeing a rise in “suffix branding conflicts” in tech:

“-AI”
“-Secure”
“-Strike”
“-Cloud”

As markets saturate, the fight is no longer just about logos or logos or exact names—it’s about structural similarity in brand architecture.

For founders, the takeaway is simple:

If your brand sounds like a category trend, it may already be too close to someone else’s enforcement perimeter.

05/13/2026

Most founders think adding a “simple” word to a brand is safe.

It’s not.

In April 2026, an Ahmedabad court restrained Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd. from using “Honest” in its “Honest Bowl” brand—after a trademark challenge by Honest Reveira.

Same word. Different business.

Still a problem.

The court found the mark deceptively similar and issued an interim injunction—forcing the company to stop using it pending litigation.

Here’s what most people miss:

“Innocent” words are often the most dangerous.

Words like Honest, Premium, Standard, First feel generic.
But in trademark law, context + prior use = enforceable rights.

And once you scale, that “harmless” name becomes:

a rebranding cost
a litigation risk
or worse, a forced shutdown of a product line

This is where most companies get it wrong:

They validate the market.
They validate the product.
But they don’t validate the name.

At scale, that’s not a branding issue.

It’s a legal liability.

Before you invest in growth, make sure your brand is actually yours to use.

05/12/2026

A Dallas e-commerce founder called me after receiving a cease-and-desist letter.

He said, “They’re asking us to stop using our brand name immediately.”

I asked, “Do you recognize the company sending it?”

He replied, “No. But they say they own the trademark.”

We checked.

They did.

And it had been registered long before the founder’s business gained traction.

He paused and said, “So what happens if we ignore it?”

That’s usually the moment where everything becomes real.

Because in IP disputes, ignoring a cease-and-desist doesn’t pause the issue—it escalates it.

Address

Philadelphia, PA

Telephone

+12675297768

Website

http://thelawspot.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Law Spot posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The Law Spot:

Shortcuts

Want your business to be the top-listed Law Practice in Philadelphia?