As a registered patent attorney, he brings a deep technical and legal foundation to clients at the forefront of innovation, brand-building, and entertainment. His practice centers on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, technology-driven business transactions, as well as business formations and business litigation. He regularly advises startups, business owners, entrepreneurs, and established companies on protecting their ideas, scaling their brands, and navigating complex IP and contract disputes. From securing patents to enforcing trademarks, Alexander’s legal work is designed to drive business growth while minimizing risk. He also brings niche expertise in Entertainment and Sports Law, helping athletes, musicians, and influencers protect and monetize their assets.

Illinois Rising Stars are among the top 2.5 percent of lawyers in the state and are either 40 years old or younger or in practice for 10 years or less. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

Alexander may be reached in CMDA’s Livonia office at (734) 261-2400 or akarana@cmda-law.com.

This article explains how a U.S. provisional or non-provisional application can become the foundation for worldwide patent protection under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), how timing works, and why startups and growing businesses should plan globally even when starting local.

Why Start with a U.S. Patent

The United States remains the world’s largest consumer and innovation market. A U.S. utility patent not only gives you the right to exclude others from making or selling your invention domestically — it also establishes your priority date for foreign filings.

Because most global filings trace back to a U.S. priority application, your first step — whether provisional or non-provisional — sets the clock for everything that follows.

That’s why most global IP strategies begin with a U.S. filing, even for companies that manufacture abroad.

Step 1: File a Provisional or Non-Provisional in the U.S.

Your first filing secures your invention date. You have 12 months from that date to decide whether to expand internationally.

– A Provisional Application ($5,000–$7,000): Fast, confidential, and cost-effective. Gives you immediate “Patent Pending” status.

– A Non-Provisional Application ($7,000–$9,000): The formal filing examined by the USPTO that can later serve as the foundation for a PCT or direct foreign filings.

During this year, you can evaluate product-market fit, investor interest, and manufacturing plans before committing to global filings.

Step 2: File Internationally via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is the mechanism that allows inventors to seek protection in 150+ countries through a single, streamlined filing. It does not itself issue a “worldwide patent” — rather, it preserves your right to later file in individual countries while maintaining your original U.S. priority date.

How It Works

1. File your U.S. provisional or non-provisional application.

2. Within 12 months, file a PCT application claiming priority to the U.S. filing.

3. The PCT gives you up to 30 months from your original filing to enter national phases in individual countries (e.g., Europe, Canada, Japan, China).

This process effectively buys you time — allowing you to build traction, raise funds, or prove commercial viability before investing in multiple jurisdictions.

Why Timing Is Critical

The global patent system follows a “first-to-file” rule. If you delay, you could lose rights permanently in other countries, even if you were the first to invent.

That’s why the 12-month PCT window after your U.S. filing is non-negotiable. Missing that deadline means you forfeit the right to claim your U.S. priority abroad.

A well-managed timeline looks like this:

– Month 0: File U.S. provisional or non-provisional.

– Month 12: File PCT application to reserve global rights.

– Month 30: Decide which countries to enter (based on market and manufacturing plans).

Strategic Factors for Choosing Where to File

Global filings can be expensive — often $10,000–$20,000 per country after translation and local fees. Therefore, choose jurisdictions strategically:

– Where you sell: Protect key consumer markets (U.S., EU, UK, Canada, Japan).

– Where competitors operate: File in jurisdictions where infringement is likely.

– Where you manufacture: Protect your production base to prevent knock-offs at the source.

– Where investors expect protection: Venture-backed companies often file in at least one major foreign market to increase valuation.

Remember — not every patent portfolio needs global coverage. Smart coverage in 5–7 critical markets is often more valuable than shallow filings everywhere.

Leveraging “Patent Pending” Internationally

Once your U.S. or PCT filing is complete, you can legitimately label your product “Patent Pending” worldwide. This status communicates that your innovation is legally protected and under review — deterring competitors from copying your design or function.

This message carries weight in e-commerce, manufacturing, and trade negotiations, reinforcing that your product is proprietary and backed by counsel.

How Global Patents Support Business Growth

For startups and established brands alike, international patents serve as:

– Investor leverage: Global filings demonstrate long-term scalability.

– Negotiation tools: Strengthen partnerships and licensing deals.

– Revenue assets: Can be licensed regionally for recurring income.

– Trade protection: Empower customs authorities to seize infringing imports.

A single patent family, strategically filed, can become a core business asset across continents.

Common Misconceptions

– “I’ll just file later when I expand.” Waiting beyond 12 months after your first filing eliminates your right to claim priority — meaning competitors abroad could patent your idea first.

– “A PCT gives me a global patent.” False. The PCT only extends your filing rights; you must still enter individual countries to gain enforceable patents.

– “I only sell online, so I don’t need global protection.” If you sell into foreign markets through global platforms or third-party distributors, your exposure is international.

Practical Example

A Michigan-based startup files a U.S. provisional for a new mechanical tool. The product performs well domestically, attracting interest from distributors in Germany and Japan.

Within 12 months, the company files a PCT application to reserve global rights. By month 30, it selects the European Patent Office and Japan Patent Office for national filings.

The result: a multi-country patent portfolio that supports global licensing, deters copycats abroad, and increases corporate valuation.

The Takeaway

In a world without borders, your intellectual property must be as mobile as your business. Starting with a well-drafted U.S. patent application and following through with a PCT filing positions you to compete globally — on your terms.

Smart timing, strategic filings, and proactive counsel can turn your invention from a national opportunity into a global enterprise.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on your specific situation, consult a licensed trademark attorney.

Alexander R. Karana is an Intellectual Property and International attorney at Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC (CMDA) and is admitted to practice in Michigan, Illinois, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He focuses on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, and entertainment law. Alexander has been recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America and Super Lawyers: Rising Stars for his work in IP, Patent and Sports & Entertainment law.

Contact: Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC
17436 College Parkway
Livonia, MI 48152
AKarana@cmda-law.com
www.cmda-law.com

Introduction

If you’ve ever tried to name a business, product, or creative project, you’ve probably run into this familiar frustration: every idea you love already seems to exist. You search the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database, find a conflict, and suddenly the naming process feels less creative and more demoralizing.

But here’s the truth: you’re not alone, and you’re not doing anything wrong.

Even the most iconic American brands have wrestled with naming. Some settled. Others stumbled into their final names by mistake. Many made last-minute pivots. And most encountered the same trademark constraints and legal standards that you’re facing now.

This post is designed to normalize those frustrations and give you a roadmap for creating a strong, distinctive, and legally defensible name. We’ll blend storytelling from U.S.-based brand origin stories with practical trademark law insights under the Lanham Act and USPTO practice.

Why Naming Feels So Hard

Most people assume there’s a one-name-per-class rule in trademark law: one name + one class = one owner. But the actual standard in U.S. trademark law is much more nuanced. Under the Lanham Act, trademarks function as source identifiers, and rights are determined by whether a name is likely to cause confusion with an existing mark in the minds of consumers.[1]

In plain terms, this means:

– Two businesses can use the same or similar name if they operate in completely different industries.
– Trademark rights are specific to the goods and services listed in the application.
– USPTO examiners and courts assess whether consumers would believe that the goods or services originate from the same source.

This context-driven framework explains why naming can feel impossible at first: your search results often feel overwhelming but not all of them are true legal barriers.

Famous U.S. Brands that Didn’t Start With the “Perfect” Name

Google

Google’s name came from a misspelling. The founders initially meant to reference the mathematical term “googol” (10 to the 100th power) to emphasize the company’s goal of indexing massive amounts of information. A friend checked domain availability, mistyped it as “Google,” and the team stuck with the typo.[2]

Lesson: Arbitrary or unusual names can work brilliantly when they’re backed by a great product and vision.

Nike

When Nike transitioned from Blue Ribbon Sports in 1971, co-founder Phil Knight disliked the name “Nike.” He preferred “Dimension Six,” but employees rejected it. With production deadlines looming, the team chose Nike, named after the Greek goddess of victory, despite Knight’s reservations.[3]

Lesson: You don’t have to love your name at first sight for it to become legendary.

Starbucks

The Starbucks name emerged after failed alternatives like “Pequod” and “Cargo House.” The founders eventually landed on “Starbucks,” a name inspired by the first mate in Moby-Dick and shaped by branding instincts that favored evocative “St” sounds.[4]

Lesson: Evocative beats literal. A name with emotional resonance can outperform a descriptive one.

Apple

Steve Jobs named his tech company “Apple” because it sounded simple, friendly, and came before “Atari” in the phone book. He wanted to distance the brand from cold, technical-sounding competitors. There was no direct connection to technology at the time.[5]

Lesson: Arbitrary names are often the most powerful and flexible in the long term.

Instagram

Originally launched as “Burbn,” the app was cluttered with features. Once the founders focused on photo-sharing, they simplified the product and renamed it Instagram, which is a blend of “instant” and “telegram.”[6]

Lesson: Renaming after product clarity is not failure but rather evolution.

Understanding U.S. Trademark Law: Why Similar Names Can Coexist

Likelihood of Confusion

Trademark law under the Lanham Act doesn’t guarantee exclusivity over a word in all contexts. Instead, it asks: would consumers be confused into believing two brands come from the same source?[1]
This analysis considers factors like:

– How similar the marks look and sound – How related the goods/services are – The marketing channels used
– The sophistication of consumers

Classes Are Administrative, Not Absolute

The USPTO’s classification system (Classes 1-45) organizes applications by industry, but it’s not a siloed system. Two identical trademarks can coexist in the same class if they relate to very different goods.

Example: “Delta” is a valid mark for both airline services and faucet manufacturing, which are registered by different owners, because no one expects faucets and flights to come from the same company.[7]

Real-Life Coexistence Examples:

– Dove is registered for both chocolate (Mars) and soap (Unilever)
– United is used by airlines, healthcare firms, and shipping services
– Pandora represents both a jewelry company and a music streaming service

These cases demonstrate how coexistence hinges on the perception of distinct commercial impressions.

Why Your Favorite Names Keep “Failing” Searches

Good names are often:

– Short
– Descriptive or evocative
– Easy to pronounce

Because of that, they tend to be more frequently filed and appear often in trademark search results. But many of those hits are:

– Inactive
– Abandoned
– Operating in unrelated markets
– Registered by companies that never used the mark commercially

Don’t panic at a crowded result. A clearance attorney can help determine what’s truly a risk.

How to Name Something Without Losing Your Mind

A more realistic (and less heart-breaking) naming process looks like this:

– Start with meaning, not availability. In early brainstorming, focus on what feelings, values, or vibe you want the name to evoke. Don’t focus on whether the .com is free or the USPTO is clear. Generate names that are suggestive or even completely arbitrary with respect to your product. These have the best shots at being unique and legally protectable. (Coined or unexpected names tend to survive both trademark review and brand evolution better than on-the-nose descriptive ones[21].) Don’t self-censor too early. The goal at this stage is a list of names that inspire you and match your brand’s personality, even if they sound “weird” at first. Remember, Google sounded weird at first. So did Hulu, Spotify, Etsy, and they are all now household names.

– Expect the first search to be discouraging – that’s part of the process. The first time you plug your beloved name into a trademark search, you might get a flood of hits. This doesn’t mean the name is dead in the water; it means you’ve got homework to do. Professional naming firms and trademark lawyers rarely find a name that’s 100% clear on the first try. Instead, they iterate. They identify what conflicts are real vs. which are merely similar in appearance. Refine your list by eliminating names that collide with obviously similar, same-industry brands. For the remaining candidates, consider tweaks that could help avoid confusion (a slight change in spelling or adding a unique modifier, perhaps). Clearance is about managing risk, not finding a mythical name that nobody in history has ever used. If your search comes back with zero results, that can be a red flag because it might mean your name is so fanciful or strange that it doesn’t resonate with anyone. So, embrace the search process as a refining step, not a pass/fail test.

– Let the name grow into the brand. Once you’ve vetted a name and it’s time to commit, give it room to breathe. It’s normal if the name doesn’t feel perfectly aligned with your product on day one. Most names gain meaning from the product and story you build around them, not the other way around. Jeff Bezos admitted that when he chose “Amazon” for his online bookstore, it was just an ambitious metaphor (world’s biggest river → world’s biggest selection); the name didn’t scream “books” or “online” at all. Over time, Amazon became synonymous with an everything-store because of how the brand delivered on the name’s promise. The same goes for Apple (a friendly tech experience), Nike (the spirit of victory), and every other example above. The company made the name iconic, not the other way around. So instead of obsessing over a name being a perfect description of your offering, ask whether it’s memorable, distinctive, and elastic enough to grow with your brand. If it is, you can shape the narrative to give that name meaning through marketing, customer experience, and time.

Throughout this process, keep perspective. Naming is hard for everyone. It’s a maze of creative hurdles and legal checkpoints. If you’re feeling discouraged, remember you’re in excellent company. The founders of Google, Nike, Apple, Starbucks, Instagram all hit the same wall and pushed through.

Legal Considerations and Pitfalls to Avoid

– Avoid purely descriptive terms: These are difficult to register and enforce (e.g., “Cold Beer” for beer).
– Be cautious with geographic names: These are generally weaker and less protectable.
– Don’t copy famous marks: Even in unrelated fields, famous marks like “Google” or “Tesla” enjoy broad protection.
– Check for prior common law use: Rights can exist even without federal registration, based on actual use in commerce.

Final Thoughts: What You Really Need Is “Good Enough”

Your goal isn’t to find a perfect name that no one has ever thought of. It’s to find a name that:

– Has meaning to your audience
– Is distinctive enough to avoid confusion
– Can legally stand on its own

If naming feels impossible, that usually means you’re on the right track. Every great brand name once felt uncertain. The difference is that someone moved forward anyway and let the brand make the name famous.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on your specific situation, consult a licensed trademark attorney.

Alexander R. Karana is an Intellectual Property and International attorney at Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC (CMDA) and is admitted to practice in Michigan, Illinois, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He focuses on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, and entertainment law. Alexander has been recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America and Super Lawyers: Rising Stars for his work in IP, Patent and Sports & Entertainment law.

Contact: Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC
17436 College Parkway
Livonia, MI 48152
AKarana@cmda-law.com
www.cmda-law.com

Endnotes

1. USPTO Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), Section 1207.01 – https://tmep.uspto.gov

2. Levy, S. (2011). In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives.

3. Knight, P. (2016). Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike.

4. Schultz, H. (2011). Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul.

5. Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs.

6. Systrom, K. (2012). Instagram Company Blog Archive.

7. USPTO Registration Nos. 1308058 (Delta Air Lines) and 0812345 (Delta Faucet).

​Real Estate & Property Law Changes: ​Recent legislative action has introduced new requirements for homeowners’ associations (HOAs) and addressed issues of housing affordability.

​Homeowners’ Energy Policy Act: A new law effective April 1, 2025, limits an HOA’s ability to restrict homeowners from installing energy-saving devices, such as solar panels and rain barrels. All HOAs are now required to adopt a solar energy policy that complies with the new statute. The Act mandates HOAs create a solar energy policy within a year to outline installation standards and processes, but prohibits them from denying applications based on arbitrary reasons. HOA’s can only deny requests if they violate law or significantly impact safety, but cannot impose fines for violations of their own prior rules, nor can they charge excessive fees. The law excludes common areas and shared roofs, applying only to installations on individual lots.

Real Estate Commissions: New rules for real estate commissions took effect in August 2024. Under these changes, buyers must now sign a written agreement with their agent that outlines the agent’s commission before they begin touring homes. This change aims to provide greater transparency in the home-buying process. The National Association of Realtors settlement, requires buyers to pay their own agent’s commission through a written agreement signed before a home search begins, rather than the seller typically covering both agent commissions. Key impacts include the elimination of buyer agent commissions being listed on the MLS and the increased focus on negotiation and the potential for buyers to ask the seller for concessions.

​Affordable Housing: New laws have been signed to support the expansion of affordable housing by providing the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) with more flexibility to offer mortgage assistance and respond to market conditions. Michigan is addressing its affordable housing crisis by expanding MSHDA programs and enacting new legislation to support both homebuyers and renters. Key changes include a significant increase in the maximum sales price limit for MSHDA-financed homes and the introduction of the Housing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) tool to incentivize affordable housing development for various income levels. These efforts aim to increase housing supply, provide more flexible financing, and help Michigan residents, particularly first-time and middle-income households, overcome the growing challenges of housing cost burdens.

Employment Law Updates: ​Effective early in 2025, Michigan has seen significant changes to its employment laws, primarily affecting minimum wage and sick time benefits. These changes stemmed from a Michigan Supreme Court ruling that reinstated prior voter-approved laws.

Minimum Wage Increase: The state’s minimum wage has increased. As of February 21, 2025, the minimum wage is now $12.48 per hour. This also includes changes to the minimum wage for minors and a path to phasing out the tip credit for tipped employees.  After 2028, the minimum wage will be adjusted annually based upon inflation.

Earned Sick Time Act:  The Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA) replaced the previous Paid Medical Leave Act. The new law requires most employers to provide employees with more generous paid sick leave. Employees must accrue at least one hour of earned sick time for every 30 hours worked, with annual usage caps of up to 72 hours for larger employers.  All unused sick time must be carried over to the next year with no cap. Employers can now require new hires to wait up to 120 days before using their accrued sick time.

John D. Gwyn is an attorney in our Livonia office where he focuses his practice on real estate law, community association law, commercial litigation, and municipal law. He represents developers and condominium and homeowners’ associations with matters involving real estate, contract, and construction issues. He currently serves as a committee member on the Oakland County Bar Association’s Real Estate Committee. Mr. Gwyn is a Contributor to the Institute of Continuing Legal Education and recently presented an on-demand seminar on short-term rentals. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or jgwyn@cmda-law.com.

First Down: The Likelihood of Confusion Playbook

Trademark law throws its first flag under Lanham Act § 2(d), which bars marks “likely to cause confusion” with existing registrations. The TTAB reviews this under the DuPont factors, looking at similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods, channels of trade, and the all-important fame of the prior mark.

• Similarity of marks. OSU has registrations for BUCKEYES, and “BUCKEYE TEARS” doesn’t exactly run a trick play—it squarely references the same mascot. Connotation counts, and consumers may reasonably assume some “sponsorship” by Ohio State.
• Goods and channels. While OSU isn’t selling beer at the Shoe (yet), collegiate licensing covers everything from hoodies to tailgate chairs. Courts recognize that when brands extend across merchandise, fans might think even alcohol is licensed.
• Fame. Ohio State’s licensing program has racked up $145M+ in royalties and $2.2B in retail sales over the past decade. That’s a stat line any athletic department would envy, and and it bolsters OSU’s case that BUCKEYES is more than a mascot; it’s a commercial powerhouse.

Like a replay review, the TTAB will slow down the tape to see if the public would think “BUCKEYE TEARS” is a cheeky parody or a licensed extra point.

Second Down: Dilution by Blurring (and Tarnishment)

The dilution claim—Lanham Act § 43(c)—is OSU’s Hail Mary. To win here, OSU must prove BUCKEYES is famous to the general public of the U.S., not just to scarlet-and-gray diehards. If they cross that line to fame, then “BUCKEYE TEARS” could be tackled for blurring (weakening distinctiveness) or tarnishment (associating the school’s identity with alcohol).

The applicant will try a Michigan-style counterpunch: parody. But parody as a source identifier often fumbles. Courts have ruled that a joke that doubles as a trademark loses the safe harbor. It’s one thing to chant “We don’t give a damn for the whole state of Michigan,” it’s another to bottle it and slap it on a label.

Third Down: The False Suggestion Option Play

Under § 2(a), marks that falsely suggest a connection with an institution get sacked. If the TTAB believes “BUCKEYE TEARS” points unmistakably to Ohio State and implies affiliation, that’s another penalty. And unlike a questionable targeting call, this one sticks.

Fourth Down: What the TTAB Crowd Should Expect

• Procedural clock: Answer due October 2025, with discovery and trial stretching into 2027. Like overtime in a Michigan–Illinois slugfest, this could drag on.
• Evidence: Expect surveys, licensing history, and maybe even expert testimony on consumer perception. TTAB cases are often won on the margins—think of it as a field goal battle, not a 70-yard touchdown.
• Outcome prediction: Confusion alone may be a tough conversion—after all, most fans know Ann Arbor isn’t ordering kegs from Columbus. But OSU has a strong chance of sustaining the opposition on sponsorship/approval confusion and, if they prove nationwide fame, dilution. I’d bet the TTAB ultimately denies registration, leaving “BUCKEYE TEARS” as nothing more than a rivalry chant.

Rivalry Banter

• Filing this opposition is OSU’s version of a “goal line stand.”
• “BUCKEYE TEARS” might feel like a clever interception, but if OSU proves fame, the Board may blow the whistle on dilution.
• Michigan fans may relish every drop, but the TTAB doesn’t hand out “Paul Bunyan trophies” for parody.
• The Board’s ruling could be the off-field equivalent of Harbaugh’s headset toss—a decision that makes headlines and fuels tailgate banter for years.

In trademark law, as in football, the refs (here, the TTAB) don’t care who you root for. They call it by the rulebook: 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), § 1125(c), and TMEP § 1207 on confusion. But with the BUCKEYE brand’s fame stats, it’s hard to see “BUCKEYE TEARS” making it past the red zone.

And so, as we await the TTAB’s final whistle, one thing is certain: rivalry never rests, not even in trademark law.

Go Green.

Alexander R. Karana, an attorney with the law firm of Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, is an accomplished Intellectual Property attorney. He is admitted to practice in Michigan and Illinois. As a registered patent attorney, he brings a deep technical and legal foundation to clients at the forefront of innovation, brand-building, and entertainment. His practice centers on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, and technology-driven business transactions. He regularly advises startups, creators, and established companies on protecting their inventions, scaling their brands, and navigating complex IP and contract disputes. From securing patents to enforcing trademarks, Alexander’s legal work is designed to drive business growth while minimizing risk. He also brings niche expertise in Entertainment and Sports Law, helping athletes, musicians, and influencers protect and monetize their creative assets.

Mr. Karana received a Juris Doctor degree (Concentration in Intellectual Property Law- Patent Track) from University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, where he graduated with distinction. His legal journey has been complemented by his background in Chemical Engineering from Michigan State University.

He may be reached in our Livonia office at (734) 261-2400 or akarana@cmda-law.com.

CMDA is proud to support many philanthropies throughout our local community and commends the West Bloomfield Township Board on fostering a culture that values community engagement.

This annual award is given to a person who consistently makes significant contributions to the Chaldean community and the Michigan business community, including offering pro bono services. Nearly 900 people attended the Awards Dinner, including prestigious members of the business, governmental, political, and legal communities.

Mr. Acho acknowledges that “this award is a testament to our Firm’s solid foundation and reflects the incredible team we have at CMDA. Without CMDA’s collaborative spirit, along with the hard work and dedication of our attorneys and support staff, this achievement would not have been possible.”

Christopher Schultz, managing partner at CMDA explains, “We appreciate Ron’s leadership, respect his work ethic, and are inspired by his philanthropic mindset. He has instilled in all of us the importance of teamwork, the value in treating clients like family, and the significance of giving back to the community. Because of this, our Firm has continued to grow and thrive for 60 years. Thank you to the Chamber for recognizing my colleague and friend in this extraordinary way.”

The Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce is one of the largest Chambers in Michigan, serving more than 1,000 members representing over 5,000 businesses.

CMDA is thrilled to share that the Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce (CACC) has selected Ronald G. Acho as their 2025 Businessperson of the Year. This annual award is given to a person who consistently makes significant contributions to the Chaldean community and the Michigan business community, including offering pro bono services.

The Chamber states, “Ron Acho, a distinguished lawyer with Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, P.L.C., has been an active and valued member of the Chamber since its inception. When Ron first joined his firm 50 years ago, it was a small two-person team. Working tirelessly at night, Ron built a strong clientele, predominantly within the Chaldean community. Just a year and a half later, he became a partner and co-owner of the firm – this was in 1976. Since then, Ron has made incredible strides, achieved tremendous success and made lasting contributions to our community. We are thrilled to celebrate his many accomplishments.”

“Being selected as Businessperson of the Year by CACC is an incredible honor. The Chamber consistently selects businesspeople for this award for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration. I am deeply humbled to be included among such esteemed individuals who have previously received this award,” states Acho.

He further shares, “I am very grateful to be receiving this award. The foundation of our Firm was built on a strong commitment to helping others. Throughout my 50-year legal career, I have been blessed to represent many clients and have made an effort to give back to our community through pro bono work and advocating for humanitarian issues. Although I am the one being recognized, the reality is that our Firm’s success is the result of the wonderful people who work here. This award is a testament to our Firm’s solid foundation, as well as my incredible support system comprised of close colleagues and a loving Wife and family.”

Mr. Acho will be recognized at the Chamber’s Annual Award Dinner on May 1, 2025, which is attended by prestigious members of the business, governmental, political, and legal communities.

Because the repeal affects what contract provisions are enforceable, private sector employers with employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement will need to determine what this means for them. Many agreements already contain union security clauses that require employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment. However, even if a collective bargaining agreement does not currently impose this requirement, it is a safe bet that it will be a demand in the next round of negotiations and employers will need to plan accordingly.

Employees who are subject to a union security clause may choose to become a member of the union and pay all dues, fees, and assessments that the union requires of members or choose to remain a non-union member and pay only the union agency fees, which are typically 85%-90% of dues. Under the Communications Workers of America v. Beck U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a private sector employee is not required to become a full union member—only an agency fee payer. Unions determine the representational portion of dues that non-members must pay.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the Right-to-Work repeal please feel free to contact CMDA to discuss.

Suzanne P. Bartos is a partner in our Livonia office where she focuses her practice on employment and labor law, insurance defense, municipal law, education law, and litigation.

She successfully defends civil rights, wrongful discharge, and discrimination claims in state and federal courts. She has defended governmental entities at both the grievance and arbitration level and has worked with a variety of administrative agencies and tribunals including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Michigan Employment Security Commission, Michigan Wage and Hour Division, National Labor Relations Board and the Internal Revenue Service. She has also achieved outstanding results for clients in premise liability, breach of contract, collections, warranty disputes, and consumer protection. She may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or sbartos@cmda-law.com.

Christopher G. Schultz has broad and extensive experience of nearly 40 years in matters involving small and large businesses and related litigation. He has significantly grown the Firm’s Business Law practice group over the years by bringing in many new clients to the Firm, including manufacturers, financial service institutions, and small and large businesses in the retail and service sectors.

His primary focus is on entity selection, start-up and funding issues, shareholder and owner relationships, employment matters, mergers, acquisitions, real estate matters, and business succession planning. Additionally, he assists clients with estate planning matters, including wills, trusts, charitable giving, estate administration, irrevocable trusts, gifting and special needs trusts.

Mr. Schultz joined CMDA in 1993, has served as the managing partner of the Firm since 2013, and was named an equity partner in 2019.

CMDA Co-Founder and Equity Partner Ronald Acho explains, “Having Chris recognized as a ‘Go To Lawyer’ in Business Law is a long overdue recognition. He has been the Firm’s ‘go to’ guy for years. Chris provides clients with the highest level of professional legal representation in a down-to-earth and approachable manner.” CMDA Equity Partner Robert Blamer adds, “Chris has always had the ability to identify the issues, listen to and address the questions presented by the client, and efficiently come up with cost-effective solutions.  As a result, his new clients become clients for life.”

Honorees will be highlighted in a special section of Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Please join the Firm in congratulating Mr. Schultz on this well-deserved accomplishment.