• Overview
  • Overview
  • Representative Matters
  • Background
  • Featured Content
  • Insights

Mark Cantor specializes in trademark litigation and has tried various cases involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights.

Mark is one of the founders of the firm and has been with the firm as a Shareholder since 1983. He has over 35 years of IP litigation experience. He has extensive experience in dealing with complex litigation matters in all technology areas and has tried cases relating to patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights in state and federal courts and administrative tribunals throughout the country and in a number of international forums.

Mark takes a special interest in his client’s IP goals by understanding how their strategies align with their business interests. He creates tailored strategies by understanding the commercial realities and working on a plan of action that is cost-effective but still provides an enforceable competitive edge for the client.

Mark is specifically recognized for his trademark litigation practice. Due to his success in this field, several of Brooks Kushman’s largest clients look to Mark for trademark enforcement matters. He has also been recognized by many of the industry’s leading publications for his in-court victories, including obtaining the largest trademark jury verdict in Michigan history.

Mark has handled inter partes administrative proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the International Trade Commission. Mark has been extremely active in a number of cases involving insurance coverage in intellectual property cases, to try and reduce the cost of litigation to the client.

In addition to specializing in IP litigation, Mark also has a particular skill for negotiating business focused resolutions. Mark has a knack for developing creative solutions to resolve seemingly intractable disputes by fashioning a settlement based on business realities.

Additionally, Mark has an active practice advising clients on the acquisition, management and licensing of intellectual property. He has worked with many clients to develop a management strategy to enable clients to accurately and efficiently manage and monetize their intellectual property portfolios.

Mark served as President of the firm from 2007-2018. He has also served as General Counsel of the firm for over two decades and continues in that role today.

Representative District Court/ITC Matters

Kitch LLC v. Deejayzoo, LLC (Jury Trial – C.D. California): A federal jury in Los Angeles cleared beauty brand, Kitsch, represented by Brooks Kushman, from accusations that shower caps it makes infringe a New York designer’s patented design and related trademarks. After about an hour, eight jurors indicated they were siding with Kitsch, which had sued in 2019 seeking a ruling that its products did not infringe a pair of patents and trademark-protected marketing language, owned by a company called Deejayzoo. Only one of the two patents that Deejayzoo put forward made it to trial. Brooks Kushman attorneys also proved that Deejayzoo didn’t have the right to the

Terex South Dakota, Inc. et al v. Sinoboom North America, LLC – (Preliminary Injunction and Consent Permanent Injunction – S.D. Texas) – Represented Terex Corporation in a trademark infringement matter regarding the sale of BLUE mobile elevating work platforms (“MEWPs”). After learning of a Chinese manufacturer attempting to enter the U.S. market, Marc filed a lawsuit and preliminary injunction motion to stop defendant’s sale of Blue MEWPs. The Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff’s motion and halted the sale and use of Sinoboom’s BLUE MEWPs. The case shortly settled in favor of our client, Terex Corporation. This decision is the only preliminary injunction decision involving a product

Mag Automotive LLC V. Gadra Enterprises, Inc. (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Represented defendant Gadra in a trademark infringement matter relating to a numbering system on automotive equipment parts. Convinced the court that plaintiff did not have any enforceable trademark rights as the asserted trademarks were functional and had no secondary meaning, and the Court granted Summary Judgment for Gadra. Also convinced the Court to deny Plaintiff Mag Automotive’ s motion for Summary Judgment on Gadra’s counterclaims alleging false advertising, business and product disparagement, and tortious interference with business relationships and allow those claims to go to trial. The matter settled before trial. Case No. 2:16-cv-12049

Innovation Ventures, LLC d/b/a Living Essentials, v. N.V.E., Inc. (Jury Trial – E.D. Michigan): Represented Plaintiff Living Essentials in trademark infringement action involving plaintiff’s 5-Hour ENERGY trademark. The jury found that Defendant N.V.E.’s sale of a competing product named “6 Hour Power” infringed Plaintiff’s trademark and awarded $10.6 million in damages. The jury also awarded an additional $11.5 million in disgorgement of N.V.E.’s profits and fully rejected N.V.E.’s $60 million false advertising claim. Case No: 4:08-cv-11867

Ancora Techs. v. Apple, Inc. 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Living Essentials v. NVE, 694 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012)

Hochstein v. Microsoft Corp., 430 Fed. Appx. 898 (Fed. Cir, 2011)

Sunbeam Products, Inc, v. HoMedics, Inc. 412 Fed. Appx. 263 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

OnStar, LLC v. Micral, Inc., 2010 WL 3420340 (N.D.Ohio 2010)

P&M Services v. Gubb, 372 Fed, Appx. 613 (6th Cir. 2010)

Armament Systems & Procedures, Inc. v, IQ H.K., Ltd. 328 Fed. Appx. 625 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Gubb v. P&M Services, 267 Fed. Appx. 956 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

General Motors Corp. v. Lanard Toys, Inc., 468 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2006)

General Motors Corp. v. The Wildside, 133 Fed. Appx. 106 (6th Cir. 2004)

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Zen Design Group, Ltd., 329 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2003)

Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2002)

Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 217 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000)

STX, LLC v. Brine, Inc., 211 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

K`Arsan Corp. v. Christian Dior Perfumes, Inc., 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 27658 (6th Cir. 1998)

Advance Watch Co. v. Kemper Nat`l Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 795 (6th Cir. 1996)

J. Thomas Distributors v. Greenline Distributors,41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1382 (6th Cir, 1996)

Parameter Driven Software v. Mass Bay Ins. Co., 25 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 1994)

Janda v. Riley-Meggs Industries, Inc. 764 F. Supp. 1223 (E.D. Mich. 1991)

Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Sealy Mattress Co., 873 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1989)

Glasstech, Inc. v. Ab Kyro Oy, 769 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

Education

J.D., University of Detroit Mercy, cum laude

M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Michigan

B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Michigan

Organizations & Affiliations

State Bar of Michigan

American Bar Association

Federal Bar Association Eastern District of Michigan Chapter

Michigan Intellectual Property Law Association

Intellectual Property Owner Association

Recognitions

“The Best Lawyers in America,” Best Lawyers, 2009-2027

“Super Lawyer,” Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property, 2007-2025

“Leading Lawyer,” Leading Lawyer Magazine, 2014-2019, 2025

“IP Star,” Managing Intellectual Property, 2013-2025

“500 Most Powerful Business Leaders in Metro Detroit,” DBusiness, 2018-2021

“Lawyer of the Year, Patent Law,” Best Lawyers, 2019

“World Trademark Review 1000 Recommended Individual,” Intellectual Asset Management, 2015-2019

“IAM Patent 1000 Recommended individual,” Intellectual Asset Management, 2014 – 2018

“Leader in the Law,” Michigan Lawyers Weekly, 2017

“Top Lawyer,” DBusiness Magazine, 2009-2021, 2025

“10 Power Lawyers in Michigan,” Crain’s Detroit Business, 2009

116 results
“I have been very successful in resolving most IP disputes without the need for extensive litigation. At the end of the day, legitimate business considerations are what is of paramount importance. I also create tailored and strategic plans for my clients to help them reach their IP goals and business interests.”

Practice Areas

Industries