Justin Gunnell is Counsel with Sher Tremonte. He handles all types of commercial and business litigation, particularly matters involving employment law, intellectual property, complex commercial agreements, partnership and business breakups, fraud and securities law claims, and real estate. A tenacious litigator with a natural instinct for problem-solving, he excels at pursuing innovative solutions to his clients’ toughest challenges.
Whether settling high-stakes litigation out of court or charting a smooth path to victory in the courtroom, Justin brings a proven track record of success to his work at Sher Tremonte. He has tried jury trials to verdict in federal court and won, prevailed on issues of first impression before the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and resolved numerous cases in his clients’ favor through dispositive motion practice.
Justin’s prior experience gives him a comprehensive understanding of the issues his clients face. Having gained exposure to criminal investigations at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia as well as in-house practices at a large publicly traded publishing company, he is attuned to the interests of all relevant stakeholders – a perspective that enables him to accurately assess risk and formulate effective methods of resolution. He opens every matter with an extensive discovery period, then applies a rigorous review process to evaluate how the facts he has uncovered best fit into applicable law. His creativity and agile thinking routinely yield winning strategies, from advancing a novel but well-supported new theory of law to structuring a unique settlement component.
Following the Supreme Court oral arguments in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC last week, I was reminded of an article I penned years ago for Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal exploring the boundaries of parodies when up against allegations of trademark infringement and dilution. That article observed: “Many of the trademark parody cases do not spend time analyzing what a parody is. Rather, the sheer majority of cases assume that any attempt at humor while using another’s trademark is presumptively a parody.” It noted that in the face of the essentially blanket parody exception contained in the TDRA, “courts may more heavily weigh the threshold parody question.”