FacultyFaculty/Author Profile

Thomas Jirgal

Loeb & Loeb LLP

Chicago, IL, USA


THOMAS P. JIRGAL
Partner

Thomas Jirgal is a commercial litigator and trial attorney whose national practice focuses on intellectual property, advertising and general litigation matters. He co-chairs Loeb & Loeb's Advertising Disputes practice group.

Mr. Jirgal has nearly twenty years of experience representing clients in the entertainment, communications, financial services, and food service industries in cases involving copyright, trademark, trade secret, corporate espionage, false advertising, contract, fiduciary duty, defamation, invasion of privacy, employment, civil forfeiture, antitrust and unfair competition claims. He regularly represents clients in state and federal court, in private arbitration and before the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division. He also counsels clients on advertising matters, including the substantiation needed for advertising claims, and the management, licensing and protection of intellectual property rights.

The advertising disputes in which Mr. Jirgal is involved often turn on cutting-edge technological issues, and the effective presentation of complex testing and statistical analysis. As an essential part of his practice, Mr. Jirgal also regularly oversees the design and critique of consumer perception surveys that can be dispositive in an advertising dispute involving implied claims.

Mr. Jirgal is a contributing author to the Advanced Media and Technology Law Blog.

Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Advertising Disputes
  • Entertainment and IP Litigation
  • Consumer Protection Defense
  • Advertising and Promotions
  • Advanced Media and Technology
  • Music Industry
  • Health and Wellness Marketing Compliance Task Force

Prior Experience

  • Prior to joining Loeb & Loeb LLP, Mr. Jirgal worked as counsel in the litigation department of O'Melveny & Myers LLP in California.

Representative Experience

  • Represented cable company in multi-defendant defamation action alleging that campaign advertisements defamed losing candidate in Chicago aldermanic election. Successfully obtained dismissal of claims under Illinois anti-SLAPP statute. Judgment affirmed on appeal. Garrido v. Arena, et al., 2013 IL App (1st) 120466.
  • Represented cable company in Lanham Act lawsuit challenging promotional offer by satellite competitor for NFL Sunday Ticket services. Lawsuit dismissed after competitor revised advertising as demanded by lawsuit. Comcast v. DirecTV (N.D. Ill. 2011).
  • Represented wireless carrier in challenge by competitor to carrier’s comparative bandwidth, coverage, and call quality claims. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile Wireless Services), NAD Case Report #5630 (2013).
  • Represented cable company in challenge by competitor to cable company’s comparative speed and pricing claims. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Comcast Internet Speed), NAD Case Report #5624 (2013).
  • Represented wireless carrier in challenge by competitor to carrier’s claim that its 4G network is America’s Largest 4G Network. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (America’s Largest 4G Network), NAD Case Report #5488 (2012).
  • Represented household products manufacturer in challenge to competitor’s claims that the seal on its resealable food storage bags is two times stronger. Reynolds Consumer Products (Hefty Slider Bags), NAD Case Report #5484 (2012).
  • Represented credit card issuer in challenge to adequacy of competitor’s disclosure of material limitations on terms of its cash back promotional offer. Discover Financial Services LLC (Cash Back Programs), NAD Case Report #5465 (2012).
  • Represented cable company in challenge by competitor to cable company’s ability to advertise results of PC Magazine fastest ISP test. Comcast Communications, Inc. (Xfinity Internet Services), NAD Case Report #5463 (2012).
  • Represented credit card issuer in challenge to competitor’s claim that its cash rewards program is America’s #1 cash rewards program. Discover Products Inc. (Cash Rewards Program), NAD Case Report #4779C (2011).
  • Represented cable company in multi-defendant defamation action alleging that campaign advertisements defamed losing candidate in Chicago aldermanic election. Successfully obtained dismissal of claims under Illinois anti-SLAPP statute. Case on appeal. Garrido v. Arena, et al. (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2011).
  • Represented cable company in Lanham Act litigation challenging promotional offer by satellite competitor for NFL Sunday Ticket services. Lawsuit dismissed after competitor revised advertising as demanded by lawsuit. Comcast v. DirecTV (N.D. Ill. 2011).
  • Represented online retailer in declaratory judgment seeking declaration that retailer’s online pricing claims do not violate the Lanham Act. Successfully established that commencement of NAD challenge gives rise to “actual controversy” for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction, and constitutes “purposeful direction” for purposes of personal jurisdiction in advertiser’s home district under Calder v. Jones “effects test.” Amazon.com, Inc. v. NACS, 826 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (W.D. Wa. 2011).
  • Represented online retailer in challenge to retailer’s pricing claims for purchase and sale of college textbooks. Proceeding administratively closed upon commencement of declaratory judgment action. Amazon.com, Inc. (Textbook Pricing Claims), NAD Case Report #5335 (2011).
  • Represented wireless carrier in challenge to carrier’s characterization of its wireless network as “4G.” (NAD Case Report #5285)
  • Represented household products manufacturer in challenge to the accuracy of the manufacturer’s depiction of its products on product packaging. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (Ziploc Slider Bags), NAD Case Report #5252 (2010).
  • Represented cable company in challenge to satellite competitor’s picture quality and signal reliability claims. DirecTV, Inc. (DirecTV), NAD Case Report #5208 (2010).
  • Represented children’s book publisher in e-book technology licensing dispute. Successfully obtained dismissal of fraud and other non-contract claims on motion to dismiss. Song v. PIL, LLC, 640 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
  • Represented cable company in Lanham Act false advertising litigation. In issue of first impression, established that signal interference by new AT&T U-verse service with cable network can establish violation of Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. 533. Comcast v. AT&T Illinois, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
  • Represented cable company in case involving competing picture quality claims by client and satellite competitor. Obtained preliminary injunction against competitor’s national advertising campaign while successfully defending client’s own advertising against competitor’s motion for a preliminary injunction. DirecTV v. Comcast, 2007 WL 2808235 (N.D. Ill. 2007).

Publications/Speeches

  • Speaker, NAD and CARU Annual Conference 2011 (October 3-5, 2011)
  • Speaker, ACI 24th National Advanced Forum on Advertising Law Conference, New York, New York (January 24-25, 2011)
  • Speaker, Billboard Music & Advertising Conference, Chicago, Illinois (September 15-16, 2010)
  • Speaker, ACI Advertising Law Conference, New York, New York (January 26-27, 2010)

Media Mentions

  • Beyonce and Father Seek Different Counsel in Copyright Defense By Lynne Marek, The National Law Journal

Distinctions

  • Named in The Legal 500 US in Media, Technology and Telecoms: Marketing and Advertising, published by Legalease Limited and John Pritchard (2013 edition)
  • Recommended “Top Lawyers in Illinois” in Advertising & Media Law and Arts, Entertainment & Sports Law, Leading Lawyers Network, a division of Law Bulletin Publishing Company (2013-2014)
  • Extern, Honorable Harlington Wood, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Education

  • University of Illinois College of Law, J.D., 1998, magna cum laude
    Member, University of Illinois Law Review
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, B.A., 1992

Bar Admissions

  • California, 1999
  • Illinois, 2007

Clerkships

  • Law Clerk, Honorable Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.