Jerre Swann joined the firm in 1967 and became a partner in 1972. He has served as counsel for numerous national corporations in trademark, copyright, false advertising and trade dress actions in judicial districts throughout the United States and has acted as a consultant with respect to survey and expert witness issues in cases involving cutting-edge issues.
Mr. Swann was named the 2009 INTA President's Awards winner in recognition of his lifetime commitment and contributions to the field of intellectual property law. He has received the Ladas Memorial Award and the INTA Volunteer Service Award for the Advancement of Trademark Law. He was recognized in WHO'S WHO LEGAL - The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers for Trademarks. He was also recognized in The Legal 500 US for Litigation. Mr. Swann was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Law and Advertising Law in 2017 and each of the 16 years preceding. He was also named a 2015 "Atlanta Lawyer of the Year" for Trademark Law by The Best Lawyers in America®. Mr. Swann was listed by Legal Media in its Guide to the World's Leading Trademark Law Practitioners in 2008, 2011, 2012, and 2014 and he was named to its Best of the Best USA in 2011 as one of the top 25 practitioners for Trademark Law in the country. Mr. Swann was recognized as a 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 Georgia "Super Lawyer" in Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. He is also listed in the 2017 and the eight years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business for Intellectual Property Law and in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, he is listed as #1 in the area of Intellectual Property Law. Mr. Swann is listed in the 2018 and the six immediately preceding editions of World Trademark Review 1000 – The World's Leading Trademark Professionals and is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.
Successfully represented Georgia-Pacific in the expedited arbitration of a case involving false advertising claims in its competitor’s nationwide television, radio, and print campaign for paper towels. Obtained injunction and award of attorneys’ fees. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 03-2957 (N.D. Ga. filed Aug. 30, 2003).
Represent the University of Alabama in a case pending in the Northern District of Alabama in a suit involving the defendant's use of the University’s colors and uniforms art in prints depicting famous moments in Alabama football history. The defendant claims use of crimson and white is protected by the First Amendment. The University has argued that its colors and uniforms are the protected trade dress of the University that must be licensed. University of Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art Inc., Civ. No. 00585 (N.D. Ala. filed 2005).
Represent a non-profit housing organization's domestic and international trademark portfolio, including domestic and international oppositions and cancellations for the non-profit organization. We have also provided counsel regarding potential trademark litigation. Specifically, we secured a favorable settlement in a case that centered on a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate the non-profit's mark.
Represented four major universities and The Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) in a trade dress infringement case. In an attempt to avoid the provisions of a prior settlement agreement, the defendant, a clothing provider, sold t-shirts and other merchandise bearing university colors that did not include any of the colleges’ registered marks. The firm secured a ruling rejecting the theory that school colors were aesthetically functional and that the defendant's use was "fair." After prevailing on summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement and unfair competition, we conducted a two-day jury trial on monetary relief. The plaintiffs recovered damages in the form of a reasonable royalty and an accounting of defendants’ profits. The defendants later appealed, and the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed. Louisiana State University v. Smack Apparel Co., 438 F. Supp. 2d 653 (E.D. La. 2006), aff'd, 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008).
Represented American Eagle Outfitters in asserting its trademarks and advertising motif relative to advertising and sale of AMERICAN EAGLE footwear by Payless. The firm obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting objectionable practices and requiring a prominent disclaimer of any affiliation with American Eagle Outfitters. Ultimately, the case was favorably settled. American Eagle Outfitters v. Payless Shoe Source, Inc., No. 071675 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2008).
Represented adidas America Inc. and adidas-Salomon AG in trademark infringement litigation against Payless Shoesource involving the defendant’s infringing use of the well-known and distinctive adidas Three-Stripe Mark. Following a 14-day trial and two days of deliberation, the jury found unanimously in adidas' favor on all seven claims, including trademark infringement, trade-dress infringement, unfair competition and unlawful and deceptive trade practices. The jury awarded $305 million in monetary relief, including $137 million in punitive damages. This verdict was the largest in history for a trademark infringement case. Following entry of final judgment in excess of $60 million, the parties later settled for an undisclosed amount. adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc., No. CV01-1655 (D. Or. Nov. 11, 2008).
Insights View All
Harvard University, J.D. (1965)
Williams College, B.A. (1961)
New York (1966)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - Dudley B. Bonsal
International Trademark Association (INTA), Special Committee on FTDA, Former Director
The Trademark Reporter, Former Editor-in-Chief
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.