Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-01573-LJM-DML File Date: Friday, September 26, 2014 Plaintiff: KM Innovations LLC Plaintiff Counsel: Dean E. McConnell of McConnell Intellectual Property Law Defendant: LTD Commodities LLC Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Larry J. McKinney Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch
Property Damage Appraisers Inc. v. John Mosley et al
Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-01490-RLY-MJD File Date: Friday, September 12, 2014 Plaintiff: Property Damage Appraisers Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: Derek R. Molter of Ice Miller LLP Defendant: John Mosley, Clinton Body Shop Inc. Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition, Defamation, Tortious Interference with Business Relationships Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Richard L. Young Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore
This trademark dispute involves Plaintiff’s JOIN® trademark and Defendant’s JOIN.ME® trademark. Both marks are registered with the USPTO and used in connection with virtual meeting/video conferencing services. The trademarks have been used concurrently since July 2010.
Sensory Technologies LLC v. LogMeIn Inc.
Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-01406-SEB-DKL File Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 Plaintiff: Sensory Technologies LLC Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Michael Z. Gordon of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Defendant: Logmein Inc. Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Forgery, Declaratory Judgment of Trademark Invalidity, Permanent Injunctive Relief Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue
From the Complaint: “Chanel recognizes the fact that “Chanel” is the first name of Defendant Chanel Jones. But this suit is not about Ms. Jones’ ability to use her name to identify herself. Ms. Jones is using CHANEL as a trade name for a beauty business and commercially exploiting the name CHANEL. There is no absolute right to exploit one’s given name commercially if such use is inconsistent with Chanel’s rights. In this case, Ms. Jones is not using her entire name but is instead only using that part of her name that copies Chanel’s famous CHANEL trademark. Ms. Jones’ use began long after the CHANEL mark was registered and became famous, and Ms. Jones’ use is in connection with services related to those offered by Chanel.”
Chanel, Inc. v. Chanel’s Salon LLC et al
Court Case Number: 2:14-cv-00304 File Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 Plaintiff: Chanel, Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: Gregory A Neibarger Defendant: Chanel’s Salon LLC, Chanel Jones Cause: Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement Court: Northern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Theresa L. Springmann Referred To: Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry
Since as least as early as June 2000, Plaintiff, based in Auburn, Indiana, has continuously used the RIEKE PACKAGING SYSTEMS® trademark in connection with Plaintiff’s dispensing systems and closures. Around 2012, Defendant began using the RIEKES PACKAGING CORPORATION name in connection with glass bottles, plastic bottles, plastic closures, caps, metalclosures, dispensing closures and systems. Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief.
Rieke Corporation v. Riekes Packaging Corporation
Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00241-PPS-RBC File Date: Thursday, August 07, 2014 Plaintiff: Rieke Corporation Plaintiff Counsel: Kurt N. Jones of Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP Defendant: Riekes Packaging Corporation Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition Court: Northern District of Indiana Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced the selection of 19 law schools that will join the USPTO’s Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program this fall. Indiana University School of Law was one of five law schools selected to join both the Patent and Trademark portions of the Program.
The participating law school clinical programs provide patent and trademark legal services to independent inventors and small businesses on a pro bono basis. Clinic clients can expect to receive searches and opinions, advice from clinic law students regarding their intellectual property (IP) needs under the supervision of a faculty practitioner, drafting and filing of applications, and representation before the USPTO.
The law school clinical programs possess solid Intellectual Property curricula supporting a participating student’s hands-on learning in the Program; a commitment to networking in the community; comprehensive pro bono services; and excellent case management systems. Students in the patent and/or trademark portions of the Program can expect to draft and file applications and respond to Office Actions.
Click here for the full USPTO announcement and a list of all schools selected to participate in the Certification Pilot Program.
This is a dispute between two electronic cigarette distributors over the marks “Genie,” Liquid Genie” and “Electric Genie.” Both parties began using their respective trademarks in 2013 and have retail locations approximately six miles apart. This case was removed from the Circuit Court for Floyd County, Indiana.
Liquid Palace, LLC et al v. E Liquid Palace, LLC et al
Court Case Number: 4:14-cv-00051-TWP-WGH File Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 Plaintiff: Liquid Palace, LLC, Robert W. Kaiser, Jr. Plaintiff Counsel: H. Kevin Eddins, Kevin J. Fiet Defendant: E Liquid Palace, Austin Simon, Russell Simon Defendant Counsel: Loren T. Prizant, Robert John Theuerkauf Cause: Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Business Relationships, Unfair Competition, Injunctive Relief Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.
Harmony School Corporation v. School Reform Initiative, Inc.
Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00870-TWP-TAB File Date: Thursday, May 29, 2014 Plaintiff: Harmony School Corporation Plaintiff Counsel: Constance R. Lindman of Smith Amundsen LLC, Robert S. Meitus, Matthew J. Clark of Meitus Gilbert Rose LLP Defendant: School Reform Initiative, Inc. Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker
Plaintiff, based in Ferdinand, Indiana, sells chairs and other furniture under the BEST CHAIRS trademark. Defendant is allegedly selling competing furniture products under the BESTCHAIR and BEST CHAIR marks. Despite multiple contacts from Plaintiff, Defendant has refused to refrain from selling under the allegedly infringing mark.
Best Chairs Incorporated v. Factory Direct Wholesale, LLC
Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00067-RLY-WGH File Date: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 Plaintiff: Best Chairs Incorporated Plaintiff Counsel: Amy B. Berge of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP Defendant: Factory Direct Wholesale, LLC Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, State Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victims Act Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Richard L. Young Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.
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