Laura L. Chapman

Chapman is Sheppard Mullin’s firmwide intellectual property practice group co-chair. She serves as lead counsel on numerous patent, trademark and copyright actions pending in district courts throughout the U.S. “I’ve been very lucky,” she said of her decadeslong career. “I have exceptional clients.”

In one of the top trademark wins of 2016, she successfully defended Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a significant trade dress challenge by Converse Inc. The case was watched closely by retailers and the fashion industry because of concerns over intellectual property protections for fashion designs.

The issue was Wal-Mart’s and other retailers’ right to sell cap-toe canvas sneakers that Converse said infringed its Chuck Taylor All Star trademarks. “Converse sought unsuccessfully to monopolize the cap-toe sneaker market,” Chapman said, “and prohibit all imports of a classic style of footwear. We defeated all claims after a one-week trial.”

The U.S. International Trade Commission announced its decision in June 2016; the matter is on appeal. In the Matter of: Certain Footwear Products, 337-TA-936 (ITC, filed Aug. 18, 2014).

In another major case, Chapman is defending fashion retailer Forever 21 in a federal trade dress infringement suit by clothing and footwear maker Puma SE. The claims relate to musician Rihanna’s “Creeper Sneaker” design by Puma, but Chapman is keeping mum about the details while it is in litigation.

The matter has heightened significance because it is the first major apparel copyright suit filed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 22 decision in Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc., validating broad copyright protections in industrial designs. Puma SE v. Forever 21 Inc., 17-CV02523 (C.D. Cal., filed March 31, 2017).

Then there’s the ice cream case, during which Chapman made an opposing witness cry. Chapman successfully represented a California-based Mexican-style ice cream company at a three-week bench trial against alleged infringers and won an injunction that let her client expand its U.S. business.

The opposing witness had family ties to Chapman’s client and became deeply emotional in court. “That was a gift from God,” she said of the outburst, which she and U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of the District of Columbia regarded as a distraction.

Her opposing counsel later asked the judge to “curb Ms. Chapman’s ferocity during the time she’s questioning a witness,” complaining that others were afraid to testify, according to a transcript. “It was all fair game,” the judge replied, before ruling for Chapman’s client in May 2016. Paleteria La Michoacana Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V., 11-CV01623 (D. D.C., filed Sept. 25, 2014).

— John Roemer