Tywanda “Ty” Lord concentrates her practice in the area of trademark litigation, licensing, and advertising.  Ms. Lord has substantial experience representing clients before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in opposition and cancellation proceedings and in federal district courts in trademark infringement matters. Ms. Lord also advises clients on matters related to launching national advertising campaigns.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Lord served as interim in-house counsel at a Fortune 500 company. Ms. Lord has managed numerous trademark opposition proceedings and regularly advises clients on the availability of use and registration of trademarks. She has also drafted and negotiated numerous trademark, patent and software license agreements.

Professional & Community Activities

American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section, Annual Review Board Member

State Bar of Georgia, Investigative Panel Member

Black Law Students Association, Past President

Moot Court Board, Former President

National Trial Team, Former Captain 

Order of Barristers

Education

  • Wake Forest University, J.D. (1999)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology, B.S., Industrial Engineering (1996)

Bar Admissions

  • Georgia (2004)
  • North Carolina (1999)

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2000)

Who We Are

Suite 2800, 1100 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA, 30309-4528
USA
t +1 404.745.2597
f +1 404.541.3235

Tywanda Harris Lord

Experience Highlights

Intellectual property counseling for major apparel retailer and wholesaler
Serves as outside intellectual property counsel for international apparel retailer and wholesaler for over 75 years in connection with U.S. and more
Advertising related issues and reviews for a clothing manufacturer
Represents a global consumer products company and the owner of some of the most recognized brands for T-shirts, underwear, hosiery and activewear and more
Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc.
The firm served as lead counsel for Genesco Inc. in defense of patent infringement allegations relating to an orthotic device. Plaintiffs asserted a more