Beacon Development sues Beacon Investment Properties over name use

Listen to this article

When Arrowpoint-Atrium bought three commercial properties at Arrowpoint Office Park in 2010, the deal went off without a hitch — except for one little technicality: The company changed its name to Beacon Investment Properties, a move that didn’t sit well with Beacon Development.

Arrowpoint-Atrium had Beacon Development’s permission to use its name during the buying process of the office park in early 2006.  Arrowpoint-Atrium, based in Delaware, sought the name use from Charlotte-based Beacon Development because of its local recognition. But Beacon Development sued in September 2010, saying it never gave permission to Beacon Investment Properties to use its name after the office park purchase.

In the intervening years, there has been little to no action toward a settlement between the two developers. That’s because the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Wilson, of Moore and Van Allen law firm,  and the defendant’s attorney, Jason Sneed, of Sneed, an intellectual property firm in Davidson, were previous employees of Alston and Bird law firm in Charlotte.

Alston and Bird just happens to be the firm that helped Beacon Development secure their service marks related to the Beacon name for use in Charlotte-area real estate services in 1998. Before arguments were presented on which company has the rights to use the Beacon name, Wilson tried to have Sneed removed as the defendant’s counsel, citing to a conflict of interest under North Carolina state law.

Sneed disagreed.

Although neither attorneys nor companies would comment for this article, court records show that Sneed has been fighting the conflict of interest charge for the past two and a half years.

The tale of Sneed and Wilson’s leaving Alston and Bird begins in 2007, when, according to a motion filed by Beacon Development, several attorneys left Alston and Bird to join Moore and Van Allen.

Around that time, Wilson transferred his legal work from Alston and Bird to Moore and Van Allen, the motion says.

When the service mark lawsuit arose in 2010, Wilson initially agreed to let Sneed represent Beacon Investment Properties. But in April, Beacon Development filed a motion asking for Sneed to be dismissed for conflict of interest, claiming that his job at Alston and Bird meant he had access to sensitive documents related to the filings for the Beacon marks from 1998.

Sneed, in a letter sent to Wilson in April, wrote that Alston and Bird no longer has any hard copies of documents related to the Beacon service mark filings from 1998.

“In addition, the electronic copies of documents you created for Beacon Partners while at Alston and Bird have been firewalled and are not accessible to any lawyer in the firm, only to our IT department,” Sneed wrote. “Accordingly, none of the Alston and Bird lawyers representing Beacon Investment Properties has, or has reviewed, any purported confidential information of your client.”

In the same letter, Sneed tells Wilson he is sending a disc containing all of the electronic copies to Wilson for his review. But later in April, Wilson pointed to this search and retrieval of the records as proof that Sneed still has access to the electronic copies and therefore must remove himself because of a his conflict of interest.

In August, Judge Calvin Murphy agreed with Beacon Development that Alston and Bird should be disqualified from representing Beacon Investment Properties because of an apparent conflict of interest. The judge mentioned the apparent access to electronic files at the law firm’s office as one of his reasons.

Sneed formed his own company, Sneed, in 2011 and in September filed an entry of appearance motion to show the court that he was now representing the defendants as an attorney with his own company.

Wilson was not swayed, though, and on Oct. 4  he filed another motion to have Sneed disqualified as the Beacon Investment Properties’ lawyer. Wilson said Sneed’s former work for Alston and Bird meant he had been privy to privileged information and faced a conflict of interest even after he left Alston and Bird.

In an affidavit filed with the court Oct. 21, Sneed said that during his employment at Alston and Bird he “did not do any work for Beacon Partners, access any materials of or pertaining to Beacon Partners, or acquire any confidential information pertaining to Beacon Partners.”

He also said he was not an employee of Alston and Bird in 1998, when the Beacon service mark papers were filed.

On Jan. 6, Wilson filed a motion to ask for a stay in the case until the matter of Sneed’s eligibility can be resolved. According to the original case management order on the suit, the deadline for discovery phase of the trial to end is Feb. 29. Both sides are awaiting Murphy’s decision on the motion to dismiss Sneed.