Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Blog

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Microsoft Corporation v. Mister HardDrive

Kenan Farrell — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 12:22:45 +0000

Defendants are alleged to have advertised, marketed, installed, offered and distributed unauthorized copies of Microsoft software after Microsoft warned them of the consequences, infringing Microsoft’s copyrights and trademarks.

Microsoft Corporation v. Mister HardDrive et al

Court Case Number: 4:13-cv-00079-TWP-WGH
File Date: Thursday, June 06, 2013
Plaintiff: Microsoft Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: James Dimos of Frost Brown Todd LLC
Defendant: Mister Harddrive, Mister HardDrive Wipe and Restore, Mark Cady
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Description and Representation, Common Law Unfair Competition, For Imposition of a Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits, Accounting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Sissom v. Snow

Kenan Farrell — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:41:30 +0000

Carol L. Sissom v. Robert L. Snow et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00882-WTL-TAB
File Date: Thursday, May 30, 2013
Plaintiff: Carol L. Sissom
Plaintiff Counsel: Maria Matters of Maria Matters at Law
Defendant: Robert L. Snow, Berkley Publishing Group, Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Barnes and Nobel Booksellers, Inc., Amazon, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Leon Isaac Kennedy v. GoDaddy

Kenan Farrell — Fri, 31 May 2013 00:23:54 +0000

Plaintiff is an actor, producer, and writer, best known for his performance as “Too Sweet” in 1979′s Penitentiary and its sequels. He is also a partner of a food company with Smokey Robinson, Smokey Robinson Foods.This lawsuit involves Plaintiff’s attempt to get the domain name leonisaackennedy.com from an alleged cybersquatter, via the registrar GoDaddy.

Leon Isaac Kennedy v. GoDaddy Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00876-RLY-DML
File Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Plaintiff: Leon Isaac Kennedy
Plaintiff Counsel: Theodore J. Minch of Sovich Minch LLP
Defendant: GoDaddy Inc., Spirit Media, Arthur Phoenix, John Doe
Cause: Violation of 1125(a), Violation of 1125(d), Unfair Competition, Violation of Indiana Right of Publicity, Conversion, Deception, Indiana Crime Victims’ Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint (originally filed in Hamilton Superior Court):

View this document on Scribd

Notice of Removal:

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Sensory Technologies v. Sensory Technology Consultants

Kenan Farrell — Wed, 29 May 2013 11:59:30 +0000

Sensory overload!

This is a fairly standard trademark dispute over the trademark “Sensory Technologies” in connection with audio-visual and video conferencing systems. Sensory Indiana (Plaintiff) is suing Sensory Utah (Defendant) after months of notice letters went unanswered. We’ll see if the lawsuit merits a response.

Sensory Technologies, LLC v. Sensory Technology Consultants, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00834-SEB-DKL
File Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Plaintiff: Sensory Technologies, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Tracy N. Betz of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: Sensory Technology Consultants, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Injunction
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Leeway Media Group v. Laurence Joachim

Kenan Farrell — Tue, 28 May 2013 13:53:59 +0000

Check out Bruce Lee’s first Hollywood screen test from 1965. Approximately 91 seconds of the over eight minute long video was used in the documentary, I Am Bruce Lee, which aired on Spike TV in February 2012. That July, Laurence Joachim contacted Leeway (which represents the deceased kung-fu star’s interests) and claimed to own the copyright to the screen test. Leeway has received a 1974 copyright registration but no evidence to the chain of title between the filming (1965) and the registration (1974). Mr. Joachim’s counsel, apparently, announced intentions to proceed with litigation unless Leeway paid a six figure settlement. “The demands and threats… have created and actual justiciable claim or controversy such that declaratory relief represents the appropriate remedy.”

Leeway wants the Court to declare both that Mr. Joachim has no copyright in the screen test and that Leeway has not infringed on any of Mr. Joachim’s rights. Stay tuned for updates.

Leeway Media Group LLC v. Laurence Joachim et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00822-JMS-TAB
File Date: Monday, May 20, 2013
Plaintiff: Leeway Media Group LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Theodore J. Minch of Sovich Minch LLP
Defendant: Laurence Joachim, Trans-National Film Corporation
Cause: Declaration of No Valid Copyright, Declaration of No Standing, Declaration of No Copyright Infringement, Declaration of No Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media v. John Doe 12

Kenan Farrell — Fri, 24 May 2013 00:14:10 +0000

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 12

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00166-PPS-RBC
File Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe 12
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media v. John Doe 5

Kenan Farrell — Fri, 24 May 2013 00:11:02 +0000

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 5

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00164-PPS-RBC
File Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe 5
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Robert J. Jonker
Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 9

Kenan Farrell — Thu, 23 May 2013 13:30:38 +0000

Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe 9

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00165-PPS-RBC
File Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul J Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe 9
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Judge: Dark Knight Rises didn’t infringe on CLEAN SLATE trademark

Kenan Farrell — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:28:08 +0000

Judge Philip Simon has ruled that Warner Bros.’s “The Dark Knight Rises” did not infringe on the trademarked name of a computer security program, Clean Slate. As a brief recap, Plaintiff Fortres Grand, an Indiana corporation, has sold security software under the mark CLEAN SLATE since 2000. In Defendant Warner Bros’ latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, Batman promises to obtain a software program called “Clean Slate” that will erase a person’s criminal history from every computer database in the world. This apparently caused hundreds of internet references for the fictional movie software, to which Plaintiff objected, prompting the lawsuit.

Nevertheless, Judge Simon has found no trademark infringement, focusing his opinion (full Opinion and Order below) largely on the doctrine of “reverse confusion.” I’ve provided a few excerpts from the Opinion below but you’ll want to read the full text for the Court’s complete reverse confusion analysis. The Court also rules that Warner Bros.’s use of the term “Clean Slate” is protected by the First Amendment.

There’s an obvious problem with Fortres Grand’s argument that this is a worst-case scenario of reverse confusion: Warner Bros. “clean slate” software only exists in the fictional world of Gotham; it does not exist in reality. This may seem to be a small point, but it has big ramifications for the consumer confusion analysis, which become apparent once you realize the argument that Fortres Grand has not made – and cannot make.

Here, there is simply no plausible claim that consumers will make “mistaken purchasing decisions” about the “tangible product” being sold in the marketplace: no one looking for Fortres Grand’s software is likely to mistakenly buy a ticket to The Dark Knight Rises.

Opinion and Order:

View this document on Scribd

[View the original Complaint.]

Fortres Grand Corporation v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00535-PPS-CAN
File Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Plaintiff: Fortres Grand Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher R. Putt of May Oberfell Lorber
Defendant: Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Master Cutlery v. Pacific Solution Marketing

Kenan Farrell — Sat, 18 May 2013 15:41:21 +0000

Master Cutlery, Inc. v. Pacific Solution Marketing, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00819-JMS-DML
File Date: Friday, May 17, 2013
Plaintiff: Master Cutlery, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Darlene R. Seymour Attorney at Law
Defendant: Pacific Solution Marketing, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Trademark Dilution, False Designation of Origin or Sponsorship, False Advertising, Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Copyright Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Theft, Counterfeiting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

View this document on Scribd