Blue Rhino Corporation v. White Rose Propane, LLC
The law firm of Snell & Wilmer (Salt Lake City) retained Campos & Stratis, on behalf of the defendant, to provide an opinion on the alleged trademark infringement. Campos & Stratis provided an accounting of alleged lost profits, fees and reimbursements and issued a Rule 26 expert report. The case settled before trial.

H&R Block v. Intuit, Inc.
The law firm of Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt (Kansas City) retained Campos & Stratis, on behalf the plaintiff, to provide an opinion of damages arising from alleged false advertising, unfair competition, and trademark infringement. The defendant ran advertising spots that allegedly misrepresented characteristics and qualities of H&R Block. Campos & Stratis provided economic damage analyses and submitted a Rule 26 expert report. The case settled favorably for H&R Block.

Bell Helicopter v. IAC, Ltd., et al.
The law firm Rohde & Van Kampen, PLLC, (Seattle) retained Campos & Stratis, on behalf of the plaintiff, to provide an opinion of damages resulting from the alleged infringement of trademarks. The defendants allegedly refurbished and sold trademarked helicopter parts. Campos & Stratis assisted with discovery, quantified Lanham Act damages and submitted a Rule 26 expert report.

Smile, Inc. v. BriteSmile, Inc.
The law firm of Kirton & McConkie (Salt Lake City) retained Campos & Stratis, on behalf of the plaintiff, to provide a valuation of the "BriteSmile" trademark and its derivations. Campos & Stratis provided a Rule 26 expert report, a supplemental report, and deposition testimony. The case settled.

Hawaii International, Inc. v. Seven Seas Seafood, Inc.
The law firm of Cades Schutte, LLP, (Honolulu) retained Campos & Stratis, on behalf of the plaintiff, to provide an opinion of damages arising from alleged false advertising. Campos & Stratis provided lost profit and reasonable royalty damage analyses, and submitted a Rule 26 expert report. The case settled favorably for Hawaii International.

Gary M. Kawesh, MD v. Antione L. Garabet, MD
The law firm Cooper Kardaras & Kelleher (Pasadena) retained Campos & Stratis, on behalf of the defendant, to provide an opinion on trademark infringement damages arising from the use of the trademark "Laser Eye Center" in the Bay Area. Campos & Stratis assisted with discovery and provided a Rule 26 expert report that included an analysis of allegedly infringing revenues, apportionment and deductible costs. The case settled before trial.

Bravo Corporation v. U.S. Trading Co.
The law firm Lannon & Associates (Los Angeles) retained Campos & Stratis, on behalf of the plaintiff, to calculate damages arising from the alleged infringement of the "hyper" trademark. Campos & Stratis calculated a reasonable royalty for the use of the trademark, provided economic damage analyses, and submitted a Rule 26 expert report. The case settled favorably for the defendants at mediation.

SoloFlex, Inc. v. Direct Focus, Inc. dba Bowflex
The law firm Lane Powell Spears Lubersky, LLP, (Seattle) retained Campos & Stratis, on behalf of the defendant, to provide an opinion of damages arising from the alleged infringement of trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. The property rights involved sales of Direct Focus' BowFlex line of exercise equipment based on direct advertising television commercials and spots. Campos & Stratis provided economic damage analyses, submitted a Rule 26 expert report, and gave deposition testimony. The case settled favorably for the defendant before trial.