Andy I. Corea

Andy I. Corea is the managing partner and a widely respected trademark and intellectual property lawyer.

Andy approaches managing the firm the same way he advises his clients: by focusing on creative, pragmatic and thoughtful problem-solving. Since assuming the managing partner role at the beginning of 2021, Andy has emphasized transparency and collaboration to help improve the firm’s delivery of services to clients across the U.S. and around the world. Prior to his election, he chaired the firm’s Business and Finance Department.

In addition to his management duties, Andy maintains a comprehensive trademark practice that includes both transactional and adversarial matters. He also helps clients protect their intellectual property rights through enforcement, litigation, assignment and licensing. Andy frequently draws on his deep experience to provide intellectual property due diligence counsel for clients as they evaluate potential acquisitions or mergers. His clients range from manufacturers and breweries to major league sports teams and private equity firms.

Andy’s 20+ years in the field began as a trademark examining attorney for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a role that provided insight into trademark clearance and prosecution. Knowing what the USPTO looks for when reviewing an application allows him to effectively—and efficiently—guide clients through the trademark registration process. He regularly appears before the USTPO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and represents clients in federal court cases around the country. Praised for his accessibility and responsiveness, he provides pragmatic counsel that aligns with his clients’ business goals.

In an administrative trial before the TTAB in 2021, Andy successfully opposed an application by a sportswear company to use the mark registered to his client’s craft brewery. The TTAB’s decision, which sustained the opposition’s claim that confusion was likely, confirmed the brewery’s exclusive rights to its brand and allowed it to register its own trademark for clothing. The case required extensive proof of the client’s prior use of its trademark on clothing as well as proof supporting the relation of beer to clothing to establish the likelihood of confusion.