Ty Lord specializes in trademark and advertising counseling and litigation. She represents brand owners across a broad spectrum of industries including sports and intimate apparel, consumer products, and hospitality. Early in her career, Ms. Lord devoted part of her practice to prosecuting and litigating patents and, for a brief period, served as an assistant district attorney. She also served as interim in-house counsel for a Fortune 500 consumer products company. Ms. Lord leverages her diverse background to advance her clients’ business objectives. She regularly partners with clients to develop practical and creative solutions to legal issues. Her approach to litigation has led to excellent results for clients in federal courts across the United States and in cancellation and opposition proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Ms. Lord also proactively advises clients on a variety of issues to minimize the risk of disputes while maximizing the visibility of clients’ brand, including trademark clearance and portfolio management and managing social media advertising campaigns and the intellectual property and right of publicity issues that accompany them. Ms. Lord currently serves as a member of her firm’s Executive Committee.
Ms. Lord was listed in the 2022 and the seven immediately preceding editions of World Trademark Review 1000 – The World's Leading Trademark Professionals. She was recommended in 2016, 2017 and 2018 by Legal 500 US for Non-Contentious Trademark Law. Ms. Lord was listed in The Best Lawyers in America® in 2022 and the seven years immediately preceding for Intellectual Property Litigation, Food and Beverage Law, and Trademark Law. She was recognized in 2022 and the seven years prior as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" and in 2013 as a Georgia "Rising Star" in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. Ms. Lord as recognized as an “IP Star” in 2022 by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. She was recognized as a "Leader in Corporate Citizenship" in 2021 by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for finding the perfect intersection of social good and corporate success by integrating relevant societal concerns into her core operating strategies and embracing them as positive for businesses, customers, employees, and the metro Atlanta community. In 2020, Ms. Lord was recognized by Daily Report's Georgia Legal Awards as a “Best Mentor" for the way she has nurtured less-experienced colleagues to become better lawyers and in 2013, she was named one of Georgia's Attorneys "On the Rise" by the Daily Report. Ms. Lord was named as one of Georgia Trend's 2018 "Legal Elite" for Intellectual Property Law.
The firm represented a multinational Fortune 100 mail, package, and freight delivery corporation in a trademark infringement matter. The plaintiff claims that our client infringed its trademark when it launched an application under a similar designation. The application allows online sellers to import order data and print shipping labels to ship orders.
Serves as outside intellectual property counsel for international apparel retailer and wholesaler for over 75 years in connection with U.S. and international trademark portfolio management, trademark, patent, copyright and advertising advice, licensing and a broad range of contentious and non-contentious intellectual property and advertising matters.
Represents a global consumer products company and the owner of some of the most recognized brands for T-shirts, underwear, hosiery and activewear and routinely advises the client on advertising related issues that include reviewing advertising copy, securing rights from models, photographers and musicians, drafting and negotiating agreements for celebrity spokespersons, product placement in motion pictures, and event sponsorships.
The firm served as lead counsel for Genesco Inc. in defense of patent infringement allegations relating to an orthotic device. Plaintiffs asserted a multi-count complaint involving patent, trade secret, conversion, and unjust enrichment theories concerning shoe insert technology. We successfully secured and defended on appeal a summary judgment of non-infringement. Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 351 F. Supp.2d 320 (E.D. Pa. 2005), aff’d 440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
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).
Insights View All
Wake Forest University J.D. (1999)
Georgia Institute of Technology B.S. (1996) Industrial Engineering
North Carolina (1999)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2000)
American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section, Annual Review Board, Member
Georgia First Amendment Foundation, Board of Directors, Member
Georgia Justice Project, Board of Directors, Member
Leadership Atlanta, Class of 2015, Member
Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD), 2018 Class of Fellows, Member
State Bar of Georgia, Investigative Panel Member
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.