IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: Trademark law firm liable for limited attorney fees and costs despite meritless infringement lawsuit, (May 15, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The court found the case “exceptional” due to false allegations and bad-faith litigation conduct but awarded only limited fees because both sides prolonged the dispute.

A trademark law firm was ordered to pay $74,950 in attorney fees and $17,670.05 in costs after the federal district court in California found its infringement suit against a legal referral platform “exceptional,” citing knowingly false allegations, lack of evidence of confusion, and continued litigation despite a meritless case. However, the court substantially reduced the requested fees, originally over $1.3 million, because the defendant’s own litigation conduct, including discovery delays and procedural violations, significantly prolonged the dispute (Legalforce Rapc Worldwide P.C. v. MH SUB I, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-00669-JSC (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C., provides trademark prosecution and related legal services to businesses. The defendant, MH Sub I, LLC, operates an online platform, including the website “LawFirms.com,” which connects individuals seeking legal assistance with lawyers across multiple practice areas. The parties had no direct commercial relationship and came into conflict only after LegalForce alleged that the platform’s branding created consumer confusion.

LegalForce asserted rights in two service marks consisting of a stylized parallelogram design used with the word “LegalForce,” as well as the design element alone. Although it referenced additional marks such as “LEGALFORCE TRADEMARKIA,” those were not asserted in the litigation. The court later found that the asserted marks were commercially weak and had not been meaningfully promoted, despite LegalForce’s claims of substantial marketing expenditures.

The dispute arose in November 2023 when MH Sub I used a logo incorporating a parallelogram design and the term “LawFirms.com” on its referral platform. LegalForce filed suit alleging trademark infringement and initially sought $1 million in damages, later increasing its demand to $15 million. MH Sub I denied infringement. After discovery and a bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of MH Sub I on the ground that no likelihood of confusion existed. MH Sub I then sought attorney fees under the Lanham Act, while LegalForce moved to reduce the costs awarded against it.

No likelihood of confusion. The court applied the factors outlined in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348–49 (9th Cir. 1979) and determined that all eight weighed against a likelihood of confusion. It emphasized the absence of actual confusion and the dissimilarity of the parties’ marks, services, and marketing contexts. LegalForce conceded that it had no evidence of actual confusion, which further weakened its claims.

Dissimilar services. A central factor was the difference in the parties’ businesses. LegalForce provides trademark legal services, while MH Sub I operates a referral platform connecting consumers with attorneys. Even though both relate broadly to legal services, representing clients and referring them were found to be fundamentally distinct functions. Discovery showed that MH Sub I did not refer any trademark-related matters during the relevant period, eliminating any meaningful overlap.

Weak mark evidence. The asserted marks were found to be both conceptually and commercially weak. Although LegalForce claimed to have spent more than $10 million on marketing, the evidence showed that those expenditures related to a different brand, “Trademarkia.” The court also noted that even LegalForce’s own clients did not recognize the “LegalForce” mark.

Distinct marketing channels. No overlap in marketing channels was established. LegalForce failed to show that its marks appeared in paid advertisements or in settings where consumers would encounter both parties’ branding. By contrast, MH Sub I’s platform operated in different channels, further reducing the likelihood of confusion.

No intent to trade on goodwill. The record did not support any finding that MH Sub I intended to capitalize on LegalForce’s goodwill. The limited recognition of the LegalForce brand meant there was little incentive to imitate it, and the absence of bad faith weighed against a finding of infringement.

Sophisticated consumers. Consumers seeking legal services were found to exercise a high degree of care. Both individuals and businesses typically make considered decisions when selecting legal providers, which, in the current context, reduced the likelihood of confusion.

Exceptional case finding. The court determined that the case was exceptional under the Lanham Act. Applying Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014), and SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2016), the record showed both substantive weakness and unreasonable litigation conduct. LegalForce advanced allegations lacking evidentiary support, including exaggerated marketing claims, and continued pursuing the case despite the absence of proof of confusion or damages. The court also found that it discarded unfavorable survey evidence and presented misleading assertions.

Limited fee award. Despite finding the case exceptional, the court reduced the fee award after concluding that MH Sub I contributed to the litigation costs. Delays in discovery, failure to timely produce documents, and unnecessary motion practice prolonged the proceedings. The litigation reflected inefficiencies on both sides. Balancing these considerations, the court awarded MH Sub I $74,950 in attorney fees and $17,670.05 in costs, far below the amount requested. Additional fees incurred during trial were deemed avoidable and therefore not recoverable.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-00669-JSC.

Judge: Corley, J.

Attorneys: Raj Vasant Abhyanker (Raj Abhyanker, PC) for LegalForce RAPC Worldwide PC. Steven A. Schuman (Leonard, Dicker & Schreiber LLP) for MH Sub I, LLC.

Companies: LegalForce RAPC Worldwide PC; MH Sub I, LLC

Cases: Trademark CaliforniaNews