The Trademark Enforcement Campaign
15 lawsuits, 4+ years, and a 1.10x return — the economics of volume trademark litigation
The Numbers
| Invested | $50,000 |
| Returned | $54,970 |
| Net Profit | $4,970 |
| MOIC | 1.10x |
| IRR | 2.1% |
| Holding Period | 1,673 days |
| Distributions | 5 payments |
The Case
A financial advisor built a nationally-recognized brand around his radio program. His company owned registered trademarks across multiple classes: educational services, entertainment, financial planning, investment advisory, and retirement services.
The problem: More than 150 companies in the financial industry were allegedly using his trademarked brand name without authorization.
The strategy: File lawsuits against non-compliant infringers, seek damages and injunctive relief. Claimed damages: $25 million+.
This was a volume play — many small settlements rather than one big verdict.
All 15 Defendants Tracked
I tracked every lawsuit filed in this campaign:
| Defendant | Filed | Terminated | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defendant A | Jan 2018 | Mar 2018 | 3 mo |
| Defendant B | Jan 2018 | Apr 2018 | 4 mo |
| Defendant C | Jan 2018 | May 2018 | 4 mo |
| Defendant D | Jan 2018 | Jun 2018 | 6 mo |
| Defendant E | Jan 2018 | Oct 2018 | 10 mo |
| Defendant F | Feb 2018 | Jul 2019 | 17 mo |
| Defendant G | Jul 2018 | Jan 2019 | 6 mo |
| Defendant H | Jul 2018 | Mar 2019 | 8 mo |
| Defendant I | Mar 2018 | Mar 2019 | 12 mo |
| Defendant J | Aug 2018 | Mar 2019 | 7 mo |
| Defendant K | Jul 2018 | May 2019 | 10 mo |
| Defendant L | Jul 2019 | Jan 2020 | 6 mo |
| Defendant M | Jul 2019 | Sep 2020 | 14 mo — $100K |
| Defendant N | Feb 2018 | Feb 2022 | 4 years |
| Defendant O | Jul 2019 | Dec 2022 | 3.5 years — problematic |
Pattern: Most defendants settled quickly (3-12 months). The money came from early settlements. The last two cases (Defendants N and O) dragged on for years and produced minimal returns.
The Four Key Settlements
| Defendant | Settlement | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant L | Jan 2020 | Quick settlement |
| Defendant M | Aug 2020 | $100,000 — largest disclosed |
| Defendant N | Feb 2022 | 4 years to resolve |
| Defendant O | Dec 2022 | “Small cash payment + injunction” |
Defendant O: 18 Months of Fighting Over Scraps
Defendant O was the last to resolve — and the most problematic. Here’s what happened after settlement:
| Date | Update from LexShares |
|---|---|
| Oct 2020 | Mediation — “parties did not arrive at a resolution” |
| Oct 2021 | Defendant filed motion for summary judgment. Trial date set for Jan 2022. |
| Apr 2022 | Summary judgment denied. Trial set for May 23. |
| Oct 2022 | Trial postponed — plaintiff had COVID |
| Nov 2022 | Court orders ADR by Jan 15, 2023 |
| Dec 2022 | Settlement reached |
| Aug 2023 | “Management for the SPVs is reviewing this response in connection with determining how to proceed regarding securing payments now due and owing” |
| Feb 2024 | “The settlement was significantly below plaintiff’s counsel’s projections… included a small cash payment and a non-monetary component in the form of injunctive relief. We are still negotiating the release of the cash payment… trying to determine a cash value, if any, of the non-monetary component. We anticipate a very limited recovery.” |
| May 2024 | “We recently made further written outreach to counsel for plaintiff… proposing a dialogue to resolve outstanding issues concerning unreimbursed litigation expenses… and the non-cash consideration issue. We await a response.” |
18 months after settlement, they were still fighting with plaintiff’s counsel over expenses and trying to figure out if the injunction was worth anything to investors. Spoiler: it wasn’t.
The Broken Promise
February 2020, LexShares told investors: “Claims against more than 80 additional defendants are currently being litigated or may be filed.”
Zero additional defendants were filed after 2019. The campaign peaked at 15 lawsuits.
Distribution Timeline
| Date | Amount | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2018 | $5,590.65 | $5,591 |
| Jan 31, 2019 | $9,667.34 | $15,258 |
| Mar 5, 2020 | $20,724.95 | $35,983 |
| Oct 9, 2020 | $4,408.27 | $40,391 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | $14,579.24 | $54,970 |
| Total | $54,970 | 1.10x |
Note: 73% of returns ($40,391) came by October 2020 from early settlements. The last 2+ years of litigation produced only $14,579.
What I Learned
- Volume plays depend on volume. The pitch promised 150+ infringers. Only 15 were ever sued. The “80+ additional defendants” mentioned in 2020 never materialized.
- Early settlements = real money. The quick settlements (3-12 months) paid. The ones that dragged on for years produced almost nothing.
- Injunctions don’t pay investors. The final settlement was “small cash + injunctive relief.” Great for the trademark holder. Worthless for funders.
- When lawyers fight over scraps, you know returns are thin. 18 months post-settlement, they were still arguing over “unreimbursed litigation expenses” and whether the injunction had any cash value.
- 2.1% IRR over 4.5 years is a loss after inflation. Treasury bonds would have done better.
The Bottom Line
| Claimed damages | $25,000,000+ |
| Defendants promised | 150+ |
| Defendants actually sued | 15 |
| My investment | $50,000 |
| My return | $54,970 |
| Net profit | $4,970 |
Technically profitable. Practically disappointing. The trademark holder protected his brand. The lawyers got their fees. The investors got 1.10x after 4.5 years and are technically still waiting on the final settlement scraps.
Investment date: July 2017 (pre-litigation). Total funding: $620,000. Held for nearly 5 years. 5 distributions received. A reminder that “volume plays” against small defendants rarely deliver the returns the pitch deck promises.
