A 3rd Sink joins the Sink father-son trademark fight over SC law firm naming rights
The Post & Courier reports on the ongoing saga that we remember from earlier in the year between loving father and son……. another Sink has now joined the fray, confused ? So are we…………..
A new Sink is joining the dispute over whether George Sink Jr. can use the name his father gave him to promote his fledgling North Charleston law firm, according to court papers filed this week.
Robert Sink, a personal injury lawyer in Philadelphia, says George Sink Sr. — the ubiquitous “all nines” television pitchman and accident lawyer — is confusing potential clients by trademarking his firm’s George Sink P.A. Injury Lawyers name.
The Philadelphia lawyer says the trademark is hurting his business because some people believe the two law firms are related. In a complaint filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, he says George Sink Sr. obtained his trademark through deception and fraud and that it should be canceled.
The naming rights feud was raised in court documents filed before a hearing Thursday in federal court in Charleston.
That hearing was to determine, in part, whether George Sink Sr., who was not present, should post a bond to cover potential financial damages his son might incur in a trademark infringement case his father filed against him.
Sink Sr. says his son is trying to capitalize on his recognition and the millions of dollars he spends on television, radio and billboard ads each year by naming his practice George Sink II Law Firm.
The younger Sink worked for his father for more than five years and regularly appeared in television commercials for the firm using the George Sink Jr. name. Sink Jr. said his moniker didn’t become an issue until after his father fired him in February. The elder Sink then filed a trademark infringement lawsuit when his son opened his own law practice.
U.S. District Court Judge David Norton issued a preliminary injunction in August that prevents the younger Sink from using his name to market his firm until the trademark case is decided in arbitration. Sink Jr. is appealing Norton’s ruling and has asked that the injunction be dismissed.
Jason Luck, the younger Sink’s lawyer, said the injunction is hurting his client’s ability to make a living.
“This is crushing him financially,” Luck said, adding the injunction is “preventing him from really getting his business moving.”
The financial impact was part of the younger Sink’s argument that his father should have been required to post a bond when the injunction was issued.
Kathryn Cole, a lawyer representing the elder Sink’s law firm, said Sink Jr.’s personal financial woes shouldn’t play a role in whether the injunction stands. She said Sink Sr. is willing to post a $100 bond, adding any financial loss should be minimal because the younger Sink can still practice law — just not in a way that infringes on his father’s trademarked name.
Sink Jr. wanted his father to post a $1.5 million bond — equal to the amount of his promised severance package. Luck said Thursday a $500 bond would be sufficient, but only if the injunction was lifted pending an appeal.
