Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Roche Diagnostics GmbH v. Polymer Technology Systems

Plaintiff, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, has used the ACCU-CHEK trademark in connection with medical instruments and apparatus related to blood-glucose monitoring and diabetes management and education since as early as 1981. In March 2014, Defendant changed its company name to CHEK Diagnostics and began to promote a line of diabetes care products. Plaintiff maintains that the CHEK mark is confusingly similar to its ACCU-CHEK trademarks.

Roche Diagnostics GmbH et al v. Polymer Technology Systems Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00552-JMS-DKL
File Date: Thursday, April 10, 2014
Plaintiff: Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Roche Diagnostics Operations Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan P. Froemel, John R. Maley of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Polymer Technology Systems Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Declaratory Judgment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Order Inn v. Ton Ganser et al

Since as early as 2000, Plaintiff has used its registered ORDER INN trademark in connection with “On-line ordering services in the field of restaurant takeout and delivery.” Defendant has begun providing similar services at the http://www.order-in.biz domain. Plaintiff seeks an injunction and damages as a result of the allegedly infringing activity.

Order Inn Screenshot

Order Inn, Inc. v. Ton Ganser et al

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00517-TWP-DKL
File Date: Friday, April 04, 2014
Plaintiff: Order Inn, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Ryan Gile of Weide & Miller Ltd.
Defendant: Ton Ganser, TJ Enterprises of Indiana LLC, Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Noble Roman’s v. Sahara Sam’s Indoor Water Park

Noble Roman’s Inc. v. Sahara Sam’s Indoor Water Park, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00500-SEB-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, April 01, 2014
Plaintiff: Noble Roman’s Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Steven K. Huffer of S.K. Huffer & Associates PC
Defendant: Sahara Sam’s Indoor Water Park, LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract, Fraud, Injunctive Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

 

Wounded Warrior lawsuit against Indiana Veteran transferred to Northern District

This case transferred in to the Northern District of Indiana from the Southern District based on venue considerations.

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00075-PPS-CAN
File Date: Thursday, March 13, 2014
Plaintiff: Wounded Warrior Project Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: John P. Passarelli, Maggie L. Cox, Matthew S. Noren of Kutak Rock LLP, Jessica M. Lindemann of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Help Indiana Vets Inc., Dean M. Graham
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein
Notes: Case transferred in from Southern District of Indiana; Case Number 1:13-cv-01857

Indiana Cybersquatting Litigation Update – Rieth-Riley Construction v. Superior Asphalt

Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors in the asphalt manufacturing, supplying, paving and maintenance business. Defendant purchased the domain name Rieth-Riley.net, which includes Plaintiff’s registered trademark, and used that domain name to direct traffic to their own website, SuperiorAsphalt.com. Defendant also offered to sell the domain name to Plaintiff for $10,000.

Screen Shot 2014-02-13 at 6.27.52 AM

Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. v. Jeffrey Kresnak et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00280-RL-CAN
File Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Plaintiff: Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: D. Michael Anderson of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Jeffrey Kresnak, Superior Asphalt, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Cyberpiracy
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Rudy Lozano
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Noble Roman’s v. B & MP

This lawsuit involves a franchise arrangement gone bad. Plaintiff Noble Roman’s, an Indianapolis-based corporation, alleges that Defendant breached their Franchise Agreement by failing to pay royalties as required and intentionally misreported sales for the purposes of avoiding payment of franchise fees.

Noble Roman’s Inc. v. B & MP, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00206-WTL-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Plaintiff: Noble Roman’s Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Steven K. Huffer of S.K. Huffer & Associates PC
Defendant: B & MP, LLC, Leslie Perdriau
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract, Fraud
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Trade Dress Litigation Update – KM Innovations v. Opportunities, Inc.

This is a trade dress lawsuit involving the product packaging for synthetic fiber snowballs. See the Complaint below for a description of the similarities and some really grainy comparison photos.

Plaintiff is based in New Castle, Indiana. Defendant is based in Colo, Iowa, which has a population of 876 and is named after a railroad official’s dog.

KM Innovations LLC v. Opportunities, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00199-SEB-DML
File Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Plaintiff: KM Innovations LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Dean E. McConnell of McConnell Intellectual Property Law
Defendant: Opportunities, Inc.
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Chartreuse v. Chartreuse Fragrances

The Plaintiff in this Declaratory Judgment action is an Indianapolis-based LLC that has used the CHARTREUSE trademark in connection with “handmade soy candles” since January 2013.

Screen Shot 2014-02-11 at 7.49.29 AM

Defendant is a New Jersey-based LLC that owns a federal registration for CHARTREUSE in connection with “Candles,” with a date of first use in commerce in April 2002. Defendant sent a “cease and desist” letter to Plaintiff in January 2014 asserting their trademark rights. Plaintiff responded by filing a complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Unenforceability and Invalidity.

The Plaintiff asserts in their Complaint that Defendant has not used their trademark for over three (3) years, that the CHARTREUSE mark is descriptive and therefore not entitled to registration and that the claimed date of first use in the registration is inaccurate. If these things can be proved, Plaintiff may have a shot to invalidate the registration. However, in addition to counterclaims based on the federal registration, I’d expect Defendant’s Response to include a full slate of common law trademark infringement counterclaims based on their lengthy use of their trademark.

Maybe I’m in the wrong line of work. There must be good money in “handmade soy candles” if Plaintiff can afford to hire a big law firm to pursue federal litigation to protect a trademark in use for just over a year.

Chartreuse LLC v. Chartreuse Fragrances LLC

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00181-WTL-DKL
File Date: Friday, February 07, 2014
Plaintiff: Chartreuse LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: Chartreuse Fragrances LLC
Cause: Unenforceability and Invalidity of Defendant’s Mark, Non-Infringement of Trademark
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

 

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – James Dean v. Twitter

Screen Shot 2014-02-10 at 4.21.44 PMHere’s a potential Giant of a lawsuit.

Plaintiff, James Dean Inc., wants the @JamesDean Twitter handle. Somebody else has been using the Twitter handle since 2009 as a fan account for the Fairmount, Indiana-raised rebel movie icon. The @JamesDean account has more than 8,200 followers and has sent over 2,200 tweets. CMG Worldwide, the exclusive licensee of James Dean’s name and likeness, unable to convince Twitter to hand over the account, are now suing Twitter directly in federal court to force compliance. Twitter looks set to put up a full defense rather than subject themselves to an onslaught of username complaints.

Stay tuned for what will likely become a precedent-setting case for dead celebrity Twitter handles.

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00183-WTL-DML
File Date: Friday, February 07, 2014
Plaintiff: James Dean, Inc., John Doe, One, John Doe, Two, John Doe, Three, John Doe, Four
Plaintiff Counsel: Theodore J. Minch of Sovich Minch, LLP
Defendant: Twitter, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Endorsement, Indiana State Statutory Right of Publicity, Common Law Right of Publicity, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Conversion, Deception, Indiana Crime Victims’ Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Cybersquatting Litigation Update – BidPal v. Intermediaone et al

Plaintiff, BidPal, Inc., owns a federal trademark registration for BIDPAL. Defendant owns several BidPal-formative domain names, including Bidpal.com, Bidpal.org, Bidpal.info, Bidpal.biz, Bidpal.mobi, all of which are GoDaddy parked pages. Plaintiff made several attempts to contact Defendant but was unable to reach him.

Screen Shot 2014-02-07 at 10.45.14 AM

Plaintiff’s Complaint makes an interesting assertion that, since Defendant owns all of the domains listed above, Plaintiff was forced to adopt ” the far-inferior domain name www.bidpalnetwork.com.” In the age of search, where bidpalnetwork.com ranks 1st on the Google search results for “Bidpal” and none of Defendant’s domains rank at all, do you agree that there’s such a thing as a “far-inferior” domain name? Or just preferred and non-preferred domain names?

Plaintiff may be hoping for a Default Judgment if Defendant doesn’t decide to defend himself. This case may also help determine whether Indiana courts will rule that “parked” domains can constitute cybersquatting. Stay tuned for updates.

BidPal Inc. v. Intermediaone et al

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00168-RLY-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, February 05, 2014
Plaintiff: BidPal Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul B. Overhauser of Overhauser Law Offices LLC
Defendant: Intermediaone, Intermediaone-AGB, Peter Peterre, Bidpal.com, Bidpal.org, Bidpal.info, Bidpal.biz, Bidpal.mobi
Cause: Cybersquatting, Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore