The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY USA 10036
Bryan Wolin focuses his practice on advertising, copyright, and trademark law. His experience in advertising law includes advertising disputes before the National Advertising Division (NAD), litigation of advertising claims in federal courts nationwide, and advising clients on compliance with the NAD, FDA, FTC, and other applicable standards and guidelines. He has also litigated trademark disputes in federal courts around the country. As a dispute resolution professional, Bryan has training and experience in litigation, negotiation, and mediation.
Bryan’s experience spans many market sectors, from pharmaceutical and health products to consumer electronics, consumer insurance, and more. He regularly counsels clients on advertising claim substantiation, compliance with industry-specific rules and regulations, and performs risk-analysis relating to potential advertising disputes and their possible outcomes. Bryan also has litigation experience involving trade secrets, trade dress infringement, non-competes, confidentiality agreements, fee advancement and indemnification, and legal malpractice defense.
Bryan was recognized in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 as a New York "Rising Star" in the area of Media and Advertising by Super Lawyers magazine.
Represented AT&T in an NAD action in which AT&T challenged advertising by Comcast for its Xfinity Mobile 5G service, arguing the Xfinity commercial was false and misleading because (i) Comcast falsely claimed that all of its subscribers can get 5G service, and (ii) Xfinity’s 5G service is widely available, when neither of those claims were true. We successfully obtained an NAD decision holding that the Xfinity commercial misled viewers as to the actual geographic availability of its 5G service, and recommending that the claim be withdrawn, altered, or a clear and conspicuous disclaimer be included going forward. (NAD Finds Certain Xfinity 5G Disclosures Sufficient (bbbprograms.org))
Represented AT&T in an NAD action in which AT&T challenged advertising by Charter for its Spectrum Mobile service, arguing the advertisement was false and misleading because (i) Charter’s advertisement falsely claimed that AT&T intentionally conceals taxes and fees from consumers, and (ii) Charter’s advertisement falsely claims that Spectrum Mobile subscribers will pay only the price identified, without any additional costs or fees. The NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the challenged claim that AT&T intentionally conceals taxes and fees, and recommended that Charter’s second claim be qualified with a far more prominent disclaimer. (Spectrum Mobile Pricing Claims Supported with Adequate Disclosures (bbbprograms.org))
Represented AT&T in an NAD action in which Charter Communications argues that AT&T falsely claims to have a “faster internet experience” than cable with respect to having the bandwidth to handle large file uploads. Charter also argued that AT&T’s ads also claim that the telecommunications company delivers “consistent speed, even at peak times. However, NAD found AT&T’s claims were supported. (NAD Finds Certain AT&T “Faster Internet Experience” Claims Supported (bbbprograms.org))
Represented AT&T in an NAD action in which AT&T challenged advertising by Charter Communications that (i) falsely implied that AT&T imposes a hard data limit on its internet subscribers, (ii) falsely claimed that Spectrum Internet service offered “better performance” that its competitors with respect to gaming, (iii) falsely claimed that Spectrum Internet was more reliable, (iv) falsely claimed that AT&T charges customers for equipment that Spectrum Internet provides for free, (v) falsely claimed that Spectrum Internet provides the “fastest internet starting speeds for the price,” and (vi) Spectrum Internet has “over 99.9% network reliability”. The NAD recommended Charter Communications discontinue claims (i)-(iii) and modify claims (iv)-(vi) to disclose additional qualifying information. (NAD Finds Spectrum’s Claim Supported (bbbprograms.org))
Represented the plaintiff in a trademark dispute concerning counterfeit consumer products.
Represented the defendant in a trademark dispute concerning the business name for a national chain of flooring stores.
Represented the plaintiff in a trademark and false advertising dispute concerning competing health and wellness programs.
Represented the plaintiff in a trademark and false advertising dispute concerning consumer electronics insurance.
Represented the plaintiff in a false advertising dispute concerning consumer battery products.
*Represented the challenger in an NAD self-regulatory action concerning advertising claims regarding a competitor’s contact lens solution product.
*Represented the challenger in an NAD self-regulatory action concerning advertising claims regarding a competitor’s athlete’s foot product.
*Represented the challenger in an NAD self-regulatory action concerning advertising claims regarding a competitor’s lice treatment product.
*Represented the challenger in an NAD self-regulatory action concerning advertising claims regarding a competitor’s dog flea treatment product.
*Represented a Silicon Valley tech startup in federal court litigation involving misappropriation of trade secrets and other information.
*Represented former corporate officers and directors in federal court litigation involving misappropriation of confidential information.
*Represented foreign corporation in federal court litigation involving trade dress protection for carnival rides.
*Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend
Insights View All
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law J.D. (2012) Certificate in Dispute Resolution
Cornell University B.S. (2008) Science Communication, cum laude
New York (2013)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
American Bar Association, Member
New York City Bar Association, Member
New York State Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section, Advertising Law Committee, Member
New York Peace Institute, Volunteer Mediator
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.