Elizabeth Sokolov sues an individual over alleged use of ONE MIND THERAPY for therapy services

What was filed

The case is Elizabeth Sokolov v. Denise Levine, No. 8:26-cv-03245 (C.D. Cal., Southern Division), filed November 3, 2026, ECF No. 1 (7 pages), with a jury demand. The complaint describes Sokolov as an individual who conducts business in California as a licensed marriage and family therapist offering individual online therapy throughout California. It describes the defendant as an individual residing in California who conducts business in California, specifically in Newport Beach. The docket shows a civil cover sheet and a request for the clerk to issue a summons filed the same day.

The mark

The complaint asserts common-law rights in ONE MIND THERAPY for therapy services and says Sokolov has a pending federal application for the mark. United States Patent and Trademark Office records show Serial No. 99/771,116 for ONE MIND THERAPY, a standard-character service mark application filed April 17, 2026 by Elizabeth Anne Sockolov, an individual doing business as One Mind Therapy, in International Class 44 for psychotherapy and psychotherapy counseling for children and adults in individual and family sessions, with a disclaimer of "THERAPY," first use claimed as of October 10, 2016, and first use in commerce claimed as of March 31, 2018. Those records show a non-final Office action issued July 29, 2026, and an extension of the response period granted October 29, 2026. USPTO records spell the applicant's surname Sockolov; the complaint caption spells it Sokolov.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint says Sokolov has offered therapy services since 2016 and began using ONE MIND THERAPY for them in 2018; its opening paragraph and Count III say she has used the mark since 2016. It alleges she has used the mark continuously in commerce since 2018, that she has invested over $300,000 in services to market and grow the brand, and that the mark has acquired secondary meaning identifying her as the source of those services. It alleges the defendant recently began using the identical mark for her own therapy services in California, after Sokolov's first use, creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, or sponsorship, and that the defendant's conduct passes off her services as Sokolov's.

Claims and relief

Count I is common-law trademark infringement. Count II is unfair competition under California common law. Count III is false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The prayer seeks a declaration of superior common-law rights in ONE MIND THERAPY, a permanent injunction against use of the mark or confusingly similar marks and related unfair competition, compensatory damages, the defendant's profits, treble damages as provided by law, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees as provided by law, and other relief.