Trademark Attorney in North Charleston SC
If you are a successful business owner, protecting your intellectual property rights is one of the most important steps that you can take to safeguard your company. Often, hiring a trademark attorney in North Charleston to register a trademark is an arduous process that results in outrageous hourly fees and complicated paperwork.
At Sausser Summers, PC, our goal is to make the trademark registration process as straightforward and cost-effective as possible, so that you can focus on growing your business while we take the necessary steps to protect what you have worked so hard to build.
Unlike other law firms, Sausser Summers, PC provides flat fee trademark services at an affordable price. Our goal is to eliminate the uncertainty that comes with hourly work, so you know exactly how much your total expenses will be at the outset of our relationship.
With a BBB A+ rating, we are consistently ranked as one of the top trademark law firms in the U.S. We aim to provide you with the same five-star service that you would receive from large firms, with a modern twist at a rate that won’t break the bank.
How Sausser Summers, PC Flat Fee Trademark Service Works
Our flat fee trademark process is simple, streamlined, and consists of three steps:
- Choose your trademark service and provide us with information about your trademark through our online questionnaire. Once this is complete, you will pay the flat fee for us to move forward.
- Our trademark lawyers in North Charleston will conduct an extensive search to make sure you are in the clear to register your trademark. Once our search has concluded, we will send you a legal opinion letter informing you of our search results.
- Our trademark attorneys will file your trademark and provide updates throughout the registration process.
Our three-step process lets you:
- Work one-on-one with an experienced trademark attorney in North Charleston who will consult with you at your convenience.
- Save your hard-earned money with our flat fee trademark services.
- Gain access to a licensed trademark attorney who will file your trademark application.
- Get updates on your trademark application as it moves through the registration process.
- Focus on running your business while Sausser Summers, PC handles the hard work. No headaches, no hidden fees, no tricks.
Trademark Services at a Glance
Whether you need help maintaining your current trademark or require assistance canceling an abandoned mark, Sausser Summers, PC is here to help. Here are just a few of the trademark services that we provide to clients:
Comprehensive Trademark Search – For many entrepreneurs, this is the first and most crucial step to take when it’s time to safeguard your business and intellectual property. Your trademark attorney in North Charleston will conduct a thorough search of the USPTO Federal Trademark Database and each U.S state’s trademark database. We will also perform a trademark domain name search and a trademark common law search on your behalf. We will follow up with a 30-minute phone call, where we will discuss the results of our trademark search and send you a drafted legal opinion letter.
U.S. Trademark Filing – Once your trademark lawyer in North Charleston has completed a comprehensive trademark search, the next step is to file a trademark application. We will submit your application within 1-3 business days and keep you updated on its USPTO status throughout the registration process.
U.S Trademark Office Actions – These actions are essentially initial rejections of your trademark by the USPTO. Applicants have six months in which to respond to this rejection. For a flat fee, your trademark lawyer from Sausser Summers, PC will compose a response on your behalf so that you may continue to focus on your day-to-day business tasks.
U.S Trademark Renewal – If you already own a trademark, Sausser Summers, PC will renew your registered trademark so that it remains current. Extended protection varies depending on how long you have held your trademark. We encourage you to visit our U.S Trademark Renewal page to find out which renewal service best fits your current situation.
U.S. Trademark Cease & Desist – Whether you have been accused of infringing on someone’s trademark and received a cease and desist letter or have found an infringer on your own mark, it is imperative that you respond. If you have received a letter and do not respond, you might be sued. If you find an infringer and do not demand that they stop, you may lose your trademark rights. To discuss the best course of action for your situation, we recommend you contact Sausser Summers, PC, for a risk-free consultation at no additional cost. Once you speak directly to one of our attorneys, we will send your cease and desist letter or respond to the one you have received for an affordable flat fee.
Statement of Use – If you plan on using your mark in commerce, you must file a Statement of Use to notify the USPTO. This filing must take place six months after you receive your Notice of Allowance. For an affordable flat-rate fee, your trademark attorney in North Charleston will make any requisite filings on your behalf. Before you decide on a course of action, we encourage you to contact our office at (843) 654-0078 to speak with one of our attorneys. This consultation will help us get a better understanding of your situation and is always free and confidential.
Additional U.S Trademark Attorney Services
In addition to the services listed above, we also help our clients enforce their trademarks, monitor trademark filings, and even help protect business owners from trademark infringement on platforms like Amazon and Etsy.
Have questions about our flat-fee trademark services? It would be our pleasure to speak with you at your earliest convenience, so that you can preserve the one asset that sets you apart from everyone else: your name.
Court filing: Richland sheriff covered up school deputy preying on teens for 9 years
David Travis Bland
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott and internal investigators protected a deputy from 2010 to 2019 who they had reason to know was a sexual predator, lawyers in a civil suit alleged in a Wednesday court filing. Protecting the now-former deputy, Jamel Bradley, who was primarily a school resource officer, amounted to a cover-up to save the Richland County Sheriff’s Department from embarrassment and liability, according to the filings. Lott and Capt. John E. Ewing, the former deputy’s supervisor, “deliberately and...
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott and internal investigators protected a deputy from 2010 to 2019 who they had reason to know was a sexual predator, lawyers in a civil suit alleged in a Wednesday court filing.
Protecting the now-former deputy, Jamel Bradley, who was primarily a school resource officer, amounted to a cover-up to save the Richland County Sheriff’s Department from embarrassment and liability, according to the filings.
Lott and Capt. John E. Ewing, the former deputy’s supervisor, “deliberately and systematically concealed Deputy Bradley’s predatory nature and concealed their own knowledge of his predatory nature,” the filing said.
The filing claimed that internal investigations into the former deputy were inadequate and that Lott and Ewing shrugged off evidence that Bradley had inappropriate relationships and possibly sexually assaulted a female student. That evidence included a lie detector test failed by the former deputy and emails with students that lawyers described as clearly suspicious.
The number of times that Bradley was accused of inappropriate interactions with female students in those nine years would have reasonably proved to Lott and Ewing that the deputy was abusing students, according to the documents. The department officials downplayed those incidents in ways that indicate a cover-up.
In response, the department said Lott stands by comments he made following Bradley’s arrest in November 2019. At that time, Lott said: “I’m sick to my stomach over the thought of this girl being victimized by one of my former deputies. No child should be subjected to this, and I’m disgusted that it happened with someone who was entrusted with protecting our children.”
‘We didn’t ignore this,” Lott said at the time. “As soon as this came to our attention...we got on it.’
“It was the results of the internal investigations that led to his termination and subsequent arrest,” a department spokesperson said Friday.
Bradley worked with the department from 2010 to 2019, primarily as a school resource officer at Spring Valley High School. The department fired and charged Bradley with third degree criminal sexual conduct in late 2019. It charged him with sexual battery a few months later. Deputies accused Bradley of sexually assaulting at least two teenage students of Spring Valley.
Two lawsuits also were filed against the sheriff’s department and Richland District 2 officials. One of the lawsuits was settled last year for $900,000.
This week’s filing involves the other lawsuit. The department had requested that a judge throw out the lawsuit because it was filed beyond the statue of limitations. On Wednesday, the plaintiff’s lawyers, Daniel Boles and James Moore III, responded that the potential for a cover-up excuses the late filing.
The filing detailed seven incidents from 2010 to 2019 that lawyers argue would have been red flags for Lott and Ewing. The department’s response to those incidents were deficient to the point of “concealment.”
In 2011, Bradley was accused of habitually acting in a “flirting” manner with a cheerleader, the records show. A Spring Valley cheerleading coach found Bradley’s interactions disturbing enough to have a talk with the student about them.
The student told sheriff’s department investigators that she and Bradley had talked over social media.
The plaintiff’s lawyers brought in a policing expert to scrutinize the department’s internal probes and investigations into Bradley. In the 2011 case, the expert found that the department stopped short of a complete investigation.
The filing claimed the department never requested to see Bradley’s internet records or social media messages to get a better idea of his relationship with the student.
A department internal investigation found Bradley hadn’t violated any rules of conduct in 2011.
Concealment of Bradley’s abuse continued in 2015 after he met at 10:30 p.m. with a female Spring Valley student, identified as Jane Doe 2 in the filing, behind the Target on Two Notch Road, according to the documents.
Two Richland drug investigators saw Bradley meeting with the student and while their actions aren’t described, one of the investigators felt enough concern about what he witnessed to report it to Ewing, Bradley’s supervisor.
Ewing wanted to see if Bradley’s story matched the student’s, and he interviewed them both separately. The filing said the two stories did not match but that Ewing closed his inquiry, verbally reprimanded Bradley, and told him to stay away from Jane Doe 2 unless in an emergency.
The policing expert found the inquiry into Bradley’s behavior with Jane Doe 2 “far below acceptable,” the filing said.
Ewing’s inquiry failed to look into emails between Bradley and Jane Doe 2 even though the supervisor could have accessed those emails, according to the court document. Those 2015 emails show Bradley arranged to meet Jane Doe 2 before school hours; told her to delete a certain email because school officials could see it; and sent pictures of himself to the student.
The emails showed Bradley had a “casual” and “flirtatious” and possibly sexual relationship with the student, the filing said.
In a deposition for the other lawsuit filed, Lott said that even after seeing the emails, he still thought Bradley’s relationship with Jane Doe 2 was not inappropriate, according to the filing.
In a separate complaint, a parent in 2016 overheard her daughter and a friend discussing the friend’s relationship with Bradley. The parent told a Spring Valley administrator that her daughter saw pictures of Bradley with the friend. The parent thought Bradley was having “sexual relations” with the student. Administrators eventually informed the sheriff’s department and the information was sent to Ewing.
The department opened up an internal affairs investigation, which consisted of investigators asking Bradley seven questions and trying to arrange to speak with the parent, the filing said. The meeting with the parent never happened.
The internal investigation into that complaint did not clear Bradley of misconduct, labeling the findings as “Non-sustained,” the filing said. If it had completely cleared Bradley, the findings would have been labeled “Unfounded,” according to the filing.
Again the policing expert described the investigation as insufficient, saying that the department should have taken more steps to get more information. “Simply trying to interview one person and not getting anywhere with it is not an investigation.”
In March 2018, a 15-year-old sophomore was the subject of rumors at Spring Valley that she was pregnant by Bradley. A Spring Valley administrator asked her about the rumor, and the student said it wasn’t true “but gave a clear indication that she had been sexually assaulted” by Bradley, according to the filing.
A month later the same student presented a hypothetical situation to the school administrator in which a girl was sexually assaulted by Bradley but didn’t want to report him. The administrator believed the hypothetical girl was the student and informed sheriff’s department officials.
Ewing told Bradley to stay away from the student unless she needed emergency help. The student’s complaints “were not taken seriously,” the filing said. Bradley remained a resource officer at Spring Valley.
Because of Bradley’s presence at the school, the 15-year-old’s mental health deteriorated to the point that she was hospitalized for 50 days because of suicidal thoughts.
The student told a doctor in April 2018 that Bradley had sexually assaulted her, according to the filing.
The sheriff’s department again investigated Bradley, who took a lie detector test. He was found to be “purposefully uncooperative” and the examiner found him to be untruthful, the filing said.
A department investigator believed Bradley touched the student, according to the court document. The department opened a criminal investigation into Bradley and found he was “untruthful with investigators.” Two of the department’s criminal investigators said they believed the student was being truthful about Bradley assaulting her.
But the criminal investigation was “closed mysteriously and abruptly” while one of the investigators was out of town, the filing said. The investigation determined there was not enough probable cause to arrest Bradley.
One of the investigators described Bradley as “above reproach,” the lawyers wrote in the filing.
After the criminal investigation, Bradley, who had been reassigned, returned as a resource officer at Spring Valley.
In a later deposition, Lott said that at the time of the polygraph test, he was not concerned that the operator believed Bradley was lying.
The mother of the student, later labeled Jane Doe 1 in a civil lawsuit, filed a legal request for the department’s records on Bradley. The department refused to release his records and the mother and Jane Doe 1 sued to get them, prevailing in the case, the filing said. A judge said that the sheriff’s department’s refusal to hand over Bradley’s records had “no legal or factual justification.”
This lack of transparency added to what the plaintiff’s lawyer continually called “deliberate concealment” of Bradley’s actions in the filings.
In a July 2019 deposition, Lott said that he believed Bradley was innocent of all the allegations against him and that Jane Doe 1 was being untruthful.
“Do you believe that the allegation from my client (Jane Doe 1) are untrue?” the lawyer asked.
“That’s correct,” Lott said.
“So you stand behind Deputy Bradley”
“That’s correct,” Lott said.
Four months later, after the department charged Bradley with sexually assaulting a student, Lott called him a “monster” who “hid behind the badge and my name for all this time.”
The department said the charge followed a deposition of Jane Doe 1 in her civil suit against the department.
Green Law Firm Reviews of Lawyers from South Carolina Columbia (Automobile accident attorneys, personal injury law attorneys)
Would you like to know the prices of a particular lawyer, the average per-hour rates of lawyers in Columbia, or what other fees and additional charges you should expect? Inquire directly in the "Legal Advice Center" or contact the Green Law Firm lawyers on telephone: 803-771-2455 or via the Contact Form. Would you like to chat with a lawyer specia...
Would you like to know the prices of a particular lawyer, the average per-hour rates of lawyers in Columbia, or what other fees and additional charges you should expect? Inquire directly in the "Legal Advice Center" or contact the Green Law Firm lawyers on telephone: 803-771-2455 or via the Contact Form. Would you like to chat with a lawyer specializing in personal injury law attorneys, Automobile accident attorneys in South Carolina Columbia as soon as possible and free of charge? Visit the website, send an e-mail, or inquire directly on the Discussion Forum. Where can you find reliable reviews of lawyers & law firms? Where can you find reliable reviews of lawyers & law firms around South Carolina? We are building up a rating program to provide you with reliable and credible (valuable) information to help choose the right (top rated) lawyer for your needs.
Reviews of Green Law Firm (attorney rating)
How does one choose and hire the best lawyer in South Carolina? First of all, you should find out whether the Green Law Firm law office offers the type of legal services related to your case. Determining the appropriate field of law as well as the judicial procedure is the first essential step towards the successful solution of your legal case. If you know that you require a lawyer who is focusing on (Automobile accident attorneys & personal injury law attorneys, Personal Injury Attorney), you should compare the quality, fees and skills of specific public and private attorneys. Reviews of the Green Law Firm law firm, which are to be found here and elsewhere on the Internet, as well as ratings of individual lawyers in terms of fees, their ability to solve a case and win a lawsuit are included to assist you. Here is the complete list of lawyers in South Carolina, including free reviews. If you prefer a personal consultation, please contact the Green Law Firm law firm on telephone: 803-771-2455 or come in to the office to discuss your case with the attorney at 2821 Millwood Avenue Columbia, SC.