Larry W. McFarland's practice focuses on litigation and counseling in all areas of intellectual property law including copyright, trademark, rights of publicity and privacy, and unfair competition. Larry has litigated cases involving reverse confusion, idea submission, cybersquatting, licensing disputes, commercial disputes, trade libel, business torts, trade secrets, work for hire agreements and product piracy. Larry's practice includes intellectual property preliminary injunction proceedings, U.S. Customs work, criminal and civil enforcement efforts, as well as all phases of state and federal court civil litigation including ex parte temporary restraining order and seizure order proceedings and appellate practice. Larry has also counseled numerous clients with respect to the maintenance and protection of their intellectual property assets, including advice with respect to trademark registration programs, anti-counterfeiting programs, work for hire agreements, license agreements and e-commerce.

Larry’s practice also includes class action defense, including the defense of Yahoo! Inc. in class actions filed across the United States. Larry also recently successfully defended MTV Networks in a reverse confusion trademark case involving issues of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. In addition, Larry has an active appellate practice and has argued numerous cases before the Ninth Circuit.

Larry, along with Anthony Keats, represented the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition as amicus curiae in a case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit which established that flea market operators could be held liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and contributory trademark infringement based on the sale by their vendors of counterfeit or infringing merchandise. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996). Larry regularly represents KMW at meetings of the International Anticounterfeiting Coalition and the International Trademark Association.

Published Decisions: Arminak & Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 424 F.Supp.2d 1188, (C.D. Cal. 2006); Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 410 F.Supp.2d 1010, (D. Colo. 2005); M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communications, L.L.C., 281 F.Supp.2d 1166, (C.D. Cal. 2003); M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communications, L.L.C., 217 F.R.D. 499, (C.D. Cal. 2003); M2 Software, Inc. v. Viacom, Inc., 119 F.Supp.2d 1061, (C.D. Cal. 2000); Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, (9th Cir. 1996); and Entertainment Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 853 F.Supp. 319, (N.D. Cal. 1994).

Admitted: California; Texas; U.S. District Court, Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California; U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court.