Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Charlie Sheen's Trademark Counsel

By Brian Baxter and Elizabeth Bennett
April 28, 2011

Wilmington, DE-based Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz has ventured into the world of pop culture through its Los Angeles office. Records on file with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office show that partner Grant T. Langton is helping Charlie Sheen, the former star of the CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men, with a trademark endeavor. Sheen is trying to trademark 22 catchphrases, as well as his name and signature.

Connolly Bove's Langton is the attorney of record for a Los Angeles-based company seeking to trademark such Sheen phrases as “Violent Torpedo of Truth,” “Park Your Nonsense,” “Duh, Winning,” Rock Star From Mars,” “Sheen's Goddesses,” “I'm Not Bi-Polar, I'm Bi-Winning,” and “Living the Sheen Dream.”

The vice chair of Connolly Bove's patent prosecution and counseling section, Langton practices in the firm's Los Angeles office, which opened in January 2006.

The company seeking to trademark the Sheen phrases is Hyro-gliff Corp., which shares an address with Los Angeles entertainment firm Lavely & Singer. Name partner Martin Singer has been representing Sheen on various matters, including the civil suit that Sheen filed against Warner Bros., the studio behind Two and a Half Men, and Chuck Lorre, the show's executive producer.

The trademark applications seek protection on a wide range of goods and services, such as: electronic devices; video and computer games; gambling machines; musical, comedy and dramatic theatrical performances; production and distribution of radio and television programs and motion pictures; luggage; and various types of clothing and school supplies.


Brian Baxter is a reporter for The American Lawyer and Elizabeth Bennett is a reporter for Delaware Law Weekly. Both publications are ALM Media affiliates of Entertainment Law & Finance.

Wilmington, DE-based Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz has ventured into the world of pop culture through its Los Angeles office. Records on file with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office show that partner Grant T. Langton is helping Charlie Sheen, the former star of the CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men, with a trademark endeavor. Sheen is trying to trademark 22 catchphrases, as well as his name and signature.

Connolly Bove's Langton is the attorney of record for a Los Angeles-based company seeking to trademark such Sheen phrases as “Violent Torpedo of Truth,” “Park Your Nonsense,” “Duh, Winning,” Rock Star From Mars,” “Sheen's Goddesses,” “I'm Not Bi-Polar, I'm Bi-Winning,” and “Living the Sheen Dream.”

The vice chair of Connolly Bove's patent prosecution and counseling section, Langton practices in the firm's Los Angeles office, which opened in January 2006.

The company seeking to trademark the Sheen phrases is Hyro-gliff Corp., which shares an address with Los Angeles entertainment firm Lavely & Singer. Name partner Martin Singer has been representing Sheen on various matters, including the civil suit that Sheen filed against Warner Bros., the studio behind Two and a Half Men, and Chuck Lorre, the show's executive producer.

The trademark applications seek protection on a wide range of goods and services, such as: electronic devices; video and computer games; gambling machines; musical, comedy and dramatic theatrical performances; production and distribution of radio and television programs and motion pictures; luggage; and various types of clothing and school supplies.


Brian Baxter is a reporter for The American Lawyer and Elizabeth Bennett is a reporter for Delaware Law Weekly. Both publications are ALM Media affiliates of Entertainment Law & Finance.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.