Jonathan Pollard represents clients throughout the state of Florida in disputes involving unfair business practices such as trademark infringement, false advertising and antitrust. With respect to litigation under the Lanham (Trademark) Act, Jonathan has prosecuted and defended claims for trademark infringement, false advertising and cybersquatting. Additionally, Jonathan has significant experience with unfair competition cases and has both prosecuted and defended complex antitrust claims. Jonathan has litigated antitrust cases under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, including cases touching upon complex issues such as wage-fixing, no-poaching agreements, and patent abuse by a monopolist. Representative matters include:

• Herzog v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc. et al, Case No. 0:25-cv-61991 (SDFL 2025) (counsel for plaintiffs in a putative no-poaching and wage-fixing antitrust class action): In this case, the firm serves as co-class counsel. The plaintiffs allege that Flour – a major government contractor on FEMA contracts – maintained a no-poaching agreement with other contractors in the market, thereby eliminating competition for labor and suppressing wages. 

• Cortes v. BrickellInv. Realty, LLC, 546 F.Supp.3d 1332, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2021): Here, the Defendant posted a notice outside its office announcing that a former employee had retired. That was false. In reality, the employee had moved on to another company. The defendant sent a cease and desist letter to the competitor accusing the employee of stealing trade secrets. The defendant also spread rumours throughout the relevant business market that the employee had stolen trade secrets and was in violation of enforceable restrictive covenants. The trial court (Altonaga) denied the Motion to Dismiss and held that plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently stated a claim for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act. As with many cases of this nature, Pollard PLLC also advanced defamation per se claims. 

• Matonis v. Care Holdings Grp., Case. No. 1:19-CV-20247, 2019 WL 3386378 (S.D. Fla. June 25, 2019): Here, Plaintiff filed suit alleging defendants falsely advertised to clients that she had health issues, was unable to work, and then that she was in violation of various restrictive covenants. Defendants moved to dismiss. The Southern District of Florida denied the motion and sustained all claims, including Lanham Act false advertising and defamation claims.  

Lanham (Trademark) Act 

The Lanham Act is the source of federal trademark law and prohibits a variety of practices including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, trade dress infringement and false advertising.   The false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act are often overlooked.  Under the Lanham Act, competitors have standing to bring an action against marketplace rivals for false representations of material facts.  A company that has suffered damage as a result of a rival’s representations regarding its own products or services or the products or services of others may have standing to pursue a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. The statue provides for a broad range of remedies including actual damages, disgorgement of the defendant’s profits, attorneys fees and corrective advertising. The Firm typically pursues Lanham Act claims in connection with defamation or defamation per se claims where possible. This provides the plaintiff the most advantageous remedy framework and the best possible mixture of damages and injunctive relief. For more on Jonathan Pollard’s successful use of novel Lanham Act false advertising claims, see his discussion on Lanham Act False Advertising in the AI Era. 

Deceptive Trade Practices

In Florida, many claims for unfair business practices can be prosecuted under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (also known as FDUTPA). FDUTPA is a powerful statute that protects both consumers and businesses alike. At its core, the statute prohibits businesses from engaging in false advertising that would tend to deceive, confuse or mislead a customer. Although the statute is intended as a check against the conduct of business entities, businesses also have standing to bring FDUTPA claims when they have been deceived by other businesses. If you have a strong case, FDUTPA may be a particularly useful tool, because the statute provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.

Common Law Unfair Competition

Florida common law also recognizes a variety of claims for unfair competition. The claim of unfair competition per se involves a competitor engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct that creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.

Antitrust

The antitrust laws are laws that protect free and fair competition. Antitrust claims can be prosecuted under either federal law, in the form of the Sherman Act or Clayton Act, or their state law counterpart, the Florida Antitrust Act. The scope of Florida’s Act is largely coextensive with the scope of the federal antitrust laws. Some of the most common variants of antitrust claims involve horizontal price-fixing schemes; monopolization or attempted monopolization; market division or consumer allocation; and a group boycott or refusal to deal.  Jonathan Pollard has extensive experience both prosecuting and defending complex antitrust claims.