Craig S. Fochler



Craig S. Fochler is a partner and intellectual property lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP, where he is chair of the Chicago Intellectual Property Department. Mr. Fochler is experienced in all aspects of domestic and international trademark, copyright and unfair competition law. His experience includes litigating trademark and advertising issues throughout the United States and a number of foreign countries. Mr. Fochler is a member of the firm’s IP Litigation, and Trademark, Copyright & Advertising Practices and the Food & Beverage Industry Team.

He has represented a wide variety of clients, including: cable television companies; computer hardware and software companies; financial institutions; food and candy processors; machinery and automotive manufacturers; personal care product manufacturers; retail chain stores; sports card manufacturers; and various nonprofit organizations. Mr. Fochler also has extensive experience in intellectual property and transactional matters, including mergers; acquisitions; domestic and foreign trademark and copyright registration; and licensing programs.


From 1986 through 1992 Mr. Fochler was the Illinois law editor of the United States Trademark Association’s treatise State Trademark And Unfair Competition Law (1987), and principal contributor to the analytic text for the law school casebooks Trademarks, Trade Identity And Unfair Competition Practices: Cases and Materials (1974), Unfair Competition and Unfair Trade Practices (1985) and Trademarks (1987).


Mr. Fochler’s teaching experience includes acting adjunct professor for trademarks and unfair competition at Northwestern University School of Law and guest lecturer of deceptive advertising and expert evidence in trade identity and deceptive advertising actions for the master of law program at John Marshall School of Law.


Mr. Fochler has lectured and spoken at numerous bar and professional association legal education programs.


In 2010, Mr. Fochler was named a BTI Client Service All-Star, an elite group of attorneys nominated solely and exclusively by clients in BTI’s independent study as delivering the absolute best in client service. He was also recognized in 2010 - 2014 and 2016 by The Legal 500 and was selected for inclusion in the 2005, 2007, 2009–2016 Illinois Super Lawyers® lists. Additionally, he is a 2014 recipient of Foley’s Carl Hitchner Mentor of the Year Award, presented annually to recognize outstanding mentoring to our young attorneys.*


Mr. Fochler received his law degree from Northwestern University School of Law in 1971 and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Knox College in 1968.


Mr. Fochler has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Tenth and Federal Circuits; the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin; the United States District Court for District of Arizona; and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Professional Memberships and Community Involvement

He is a member of the American Bar Association and the Promotional Marketing Association. Mr. Fochler has been commissioner of the Lighthouse Park District in Evanston, Illinois since 1982, and was a captain in the U.S. Army where he served from 1968 to 1976.

*The Illinois Supreme Court does not recognize certifications of specialties in the practice of law and no award or recognition is a requirement to practice law in Illinois.

Representative Matters

Showing of
Counseled large national retail food manufacturer on electronic discovery issues associated with active litigations.
Foley represented Sturm Foods, Inc. in Keurig Inc. v. Sturm Foods, Inc., which was filed in 2010 and involved Keurig’s allegations that Sturm’s “Grove Square” single-serve beverage product packaging 1) infringed Keurig’s trademark “Keurig,” its single-serve product trade dress; 2) contained false and misleading statements; and 3) that its sale infringed two of Keurig’s U.S. patents. Sturm denied all of Keurig’s allegations, asserted that its use of the Keurig mark constitutes fair use, and alleged that Keurig is engaging in false advertising. In early 2011, the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware denied Keurig’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In September 2012, the District Court granted Sturm’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Keurig’s patent claims as a matter of law. Keurig appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Recently, the Federal Circuit entered an opinion affirming the District of Delaware’s finding that Keurig’s patent rights were exhausted. Foley's client, TreeHouse Foods, and its subsidiary Sturm Foods, are free to continue selling their beverage cartridges, which are for use by owners of Keurig brewers. The parties settled the non-patent issues in February 2013.
In August 2011, three weeks short of trial, Foley attorneys obtained a very favorable settlementof pending trademark infringement and unfair competition suit brought against Sloan Valve byarch-competitor Zurn Industries. Zurn’s claims were dismissed with prejudice and Sloan is freeto continue to use the disputed term “pint” to describe its high efficiency urinals. In 2008, Zurnfiled the suit alleging Sloan’s uses of “Sloan 1 Pint Urinal System” and “Sloan Pint Urinal”infringed Zurn’s federally registered marks THE PINT also for pint urinals, as well as ZURN 1,ZURN ONE and ZURN ONE SYSTEMS. Sloan filed counterclaims seeking cancellation ofZurn’s THE PINT registration, and for sales of plumbing products bearing counterfeit copies oftheir BIOGARD trademark. The district court entered judgment against Zurn, including thegrant of monetary relief and a permanent injunction in early 2009. In March 2011, the courtsignificantly narrowed the issues to be tried in ruling on Sloan’s July 2010 summary judgmentmotion, including dismissing Zurn’s actual damages claims, finding Zurn could prove noincidences of actual confusion and no likelihood as to the source of the respective parties’ pinturinals. Facing a jury trial solely upon Zurn’s late made claim of initial interest confusioncoupled with a claim for an accounting of wrongful profits, and Sloan’s trademark cancellationcounterclaim and affirmative defenses, including fair use, Zurn sued for peace.