$ 250-500 per hour
PRO
Michael P Matesky II
also known as Mike Matesky
About Michael
Biography
Mike Matesky is the founder of Matesky Law, a Seattle-based law firm providing business, intellectual property, technology, arts and entertainment advice and representation to clients of all sizes.
Mike's interest in arts, entertainment, and intellectual property law began as a musician growing up in a family of musicians. As an attorney, Mike has represented a wide range of clients, from Fortune 100 technology titans to solo artists, developers, and inventors working out of garages and coffee shops.
After practicing for years at an international "BigLaw" firm and regional intellectual property boutiques, Mike founded Matesky Law to more easily provide high-quality advice and representation on flexible terms that meet the needs of all clients.
Mike Matesky provides business, intellectual property, technology, arts & entertainment counsel.
Mike Matesky zealously represents clients in litigation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings
Experienced representation for intellectual property protection, contracts, disputes, and litigation
Counsel for business, intellectuaI property, Internet, technology, and entertainment contracts
Mike Matesky counsels clients on copyright registration, contracts, disputes, and litigation
Mike Matesky provides advice and representation to clients in the arts and entertainment industry
Mike Matesky advises clients regarding online business, terms of service, domain names, and privacy
Mike Matesky advises clients on trademark clearance, registration, licenses, disputes and litigation
Practice Areas
7
Practice Areas
Litigation
20%
21 years
Contracts and Agreements
15%
13 years
Copyright Infringement
15%
21 years
Intellectual Property
15%
21 years
Fees and Rates
Cost
Hourly Rates
Payment Methods
- Cash
- Check
- Credit Card
Awards
2013
Licenses
Licensed in Washington for 18 years
State: Washington
Acquired: 2007
No misconduct found
Licensed in Minnesota for 20 years
State: Minnesota
Acquired: 2005
No misconduct found
Location
Michael P Matesky II's Reviews
Avvo Review Score
9 Client Reviews
Filter Avvo Reviews (9)
Refine reviews to match your needs. Use the filters to quickly surface reviews that align with your case or priorities.
Practice Areas
Showing 1 - 2 of 2 reviews | Communication Style
Posted by anonymous | April 01, 2014 | Lawsuits & Disputes
Professional, Responsive, Friendly - Highly Recommended
Mike was a big help to me when I had a claim against me. He replied to every email and phone call in a prompt manner, even when he was out of town. He was very clear in his responses, but also had no problems explaining things if need be. I was very well informed in each new development of the case, ...
Posted by Becky and Steve | April 01, 2014 | Copyright Infringement
Definitely recommend Mike
Mike was able to answer our many questions we had involving our copy right infringement case, kept us informed every step of the way, and responded within very short order anytime we had an inquiry or additional question on anything. He was very considerate as to how we wanted to communicate whether...
Michael P Matesky II's Lawyer Endorsements
"I routinely refer other attorneys to Mike when they have intellectual property issues. In my own practice I've turned also to Mike for advice about how to protect intellectual property. Mike's easy to work with and trustworthy - recommended!"
"Mike and I represented a mutual client in a contentiously litigated business dispute. He is an effective and efficient litigator who understands the needs of his clientele and receives positive results. His legal services are highly recommended."
"Mike is a fantastic attorney! Understanding and relating the law is second nature for him. Mike has helped my clients work through some legal challenges and I love referring him clients I am not able to help. I consider Mike a Mentor in the legal community for intellectual property law."
"I endorse this lawyer."
"I endorse this lawyer. He is well respected in community."
"Mike has great knowledge and experience in several different areas of intellectual property law. While some lawyers in this specialized area are known for studious introversion, Mike is engaging and personable. He cares very much for his clients and always has their best interests in mind."
"Mike is a great lawyer with a unique way of approaching matters. He always brings an interesting perspective to challenging legal issues."
"Mike has great experience with trademark infringement issues and he is very personable."
"Truly excellent lawyer. Well respected in the legal community."
"Although new to Avvo, the answers of Mr. Matesky reflect a great deal of experience, and are accurate, analytic, and customized to the needs of the Avvo asker. These are precisely the qualities a client would be looking for in hiring an attorney. Welcome to Avvo."
John Houvener
Intellectual property lawyer
David Carter
Trademark infringement lawyer
Mark Warzecha
Trademark infringement lawyer
Michael Zachary
Intellectual property lawyer
Preston Cheung
Litigation lawyer
Benjamin Justus
Unknown lawyer
Karin Quirk
Family lawyer
Greg McLawsen
Unknown lawyer
Niloufar Park
Business lawyer
Daniel Ballard
Intellectual property lawyer
Pam Jacobson
Unknown lawyer
Claire Hawkins
Intellectual property lawyer
Alina Morris
Unknown lawyer
Experience
Honors
2011
Pro Bono Services Recognition, King County Bar Association, Pro Bono Services
2005
First Place - 2005 Notes Drive, Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal
2005
First Place - 2005 Comments Contest, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal
2004
First Place - Nathan Burkan Memorial Competition, ASCAP
Work Experience
2010 - 2013
Associate, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness, PLLC
2007 - 2010
Associate, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
2005 - 2007
Associate, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
Associations
2013 - Present
National Academy of Recording Arts & SciencesAssociate Member
2012 - Present
Seattle Intellectual Property American Inn of CourtBarrister
2007 - Present
Washington State Bar AssociationMember
2007 - Present
King County Bar AssociationMember
2005 - Present
American Bar AssociationMember
Sample of Legal Cases
Iunu, LLC v. Iunu Lights, Inc., NO. 15-2-07474-1 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct.)
Successfully consolidated California and Washington cases in King County Superior Court; Obtained remand and attorney fee award after improper removal to federal court; Settlement reached after commencement of discovery
Preferred Nutrition Inc., et. al. v. Lorna Vanderhaeghe, et. al.
Obtained favorable settlement for plaintiffs after some discovery and motion practice.
CollegeNET, Inc. v. Collegenetportal.com
Obtained favorable settlement under which the domain name was transferred to plaintiff before discovery or motions.
CollegeNET, Inc. v. The College Network, Inc.
Obtained favorable settlement after extensive discovery.
Anascape, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., et. al.
Obtained favorable settlement shortly before trial, after partial stay and partial summary judgment of noninfringement and no willful infringement.
Kirlin Charitable Foundation v Direct Privacy LTD Direct Privacy ID 39C08
Obtained decision ordering transfer of infringing domain name to Complainant
Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Mcintosh
Obtained decision ordering transfer of infringing domain name to Complainant
CollegeNET, Inc. v. Zerbo
Obtained decision ordering transfer of infringing domain name to Complainant
Elf-Man, LLC v. John Does 1-152
Motion to dismiss granted; Case dismissed without judgment of liability for all clients
Elf-Man, LLC v. John Does 1-29
Dismissal with prejudice for all clients
The Thompsons Film, LLC v.
Motion to dismiss granted; Case dismissed without judgment of liability and/or settlement reached for all clients
Education
2005
Chicago-Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology
JD - Juris Doctor
2001
University of Washington
BA - Bachelor of Arts
2001
University of Washington
BA - Bachelor of Arts
Speaking Engagements
2017
Work-Made-For-Hire Agreements: What They Are, When You Need Them, and Why
Work-Made-For-Hire Agreements: What They Are, When You Need Them, and Why
2017
Seattle University -- Law Firm Business Planning
Solo Practitioner's Panel
2017
Seattle Intellectual Property American Inn of Court
Oracle v. Google: Fair Use on Trial
2014
Seattle University -- Law Firm Business Planning
Solo Practitioner's Panel
2014
King County Bar Association Intellectual Property Section Meeting
BitTorrent Litigation: Extortionist Trolls or Legitimate Pirate Hunters?
2012
Northwest Entrepreneur Network Workshop
Protecting Your Intellectual Property
2012
Northwest Entrepreneur Network Presentation
Five Intellectual Property Pitfalls for Startups, and How to Avoid Them
2012
COJK Breakfast Briefing
Trademark Enforcement
2012
Audio Engineering Society, Pacific Northwest Section Meeting
Termination Rights: How Artists May be Able to Undo Old Deals and Reclaim Copyrights
2011
Northwest Entrepreneur Network Workshop
Protecting Your Intellectual Property
2011
COJK Case Law Review
Uniloc v. Microsoft: The Federal Circuit Rejects the 25% Rule for Reasonable Royalty Damages
2011
COJK Breakfast Briefing
Trademark Basics
2010
COJK CLE Presentation
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: A Useful Tool for Battling Online Trademark Infringement
2009
King County Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section Meeting
Attorney-Client Privilege: Tips for Prosecutors and Litigators
2008
Audio Engineering Society, Pacific Northwest Chapter Meeting
Copyright Law and Music/Recording Issues: The Rules, The Exceptions, and Practical Advice
Publications
2005
2005
Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal
Whose Song is it Anyway? When are Sound Recordings Used in Audiovisual Works Subject to Termination Rights and When are They Works Made for Hire?
Languages
English
Activity
Legal Answers
Top Contributor
Michael earned significant contribution points in 2013.
Legal Answers
Q&A
I paid the photographer for my photos, do I own it?
23 Aug 2018
Q&A
As a restaurant if I pay Ascap do I still need to at BNI if I only play songs on AScap list?
02 Feb 2017
Q&A
What determines how much you must pay the plaintiff in a Intellectual Property case?
01 Feb 2017