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 – Darryl D. Agler v. Westheimer Corporation

Alleged Infringing Product - Exhibit F to Complaint

Alleged Infringing Product – Exhibit F to Complaint

Plaintiff is a custom guitar-maker from Fort Wayne, Indiana. He has sold his high-quality guitars under the registered STRATOTONE trademark since 2007.

Plaintiff’s high-end guitars are “painstakingly hand-crafted from the wood of a customer’s choosing and features vintage hardware and pick-ups.” They generally retail for above $1,250. Defendant has allegedly flooded the market with lower quality, cheaper (between $200-400) guitars that bear the STRATOTONE Mark. Plaintiff discovered the infringing products at a NAMM show in 2010, where he confronted Defendant’s personnel.

Defendant, based in Illinois, attempted to file its own trademark application for STRATOTONE in December 2012 but was rejected based on Plaintiff’s registration. In response, Defendant has attempted to cancel Plaintiff’s registration and Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit.

Darryl D. Agler v. Westheimer Corporation

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00099
File Date: Thursday, March 27, 2014
Plaintiff: Darryl D. Agler
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, Amie P. Carter of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: Westheimer Corporation
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment, Conversion, Deception, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Roger B. Cosbey

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Ambre Blends v. doTERRA

Solace Complaint

Here’s a pretty straightforward trademark dispute. Plaintiff, an Indiana LLC, challenges the defendants’ use of the SOLACE trademark. Plaintiff uses the mark in connection with “essential and/or aromatic oils.” Defendant doTERRA’s Solace is a “proprietary blend of CPTG essential oils that have traditionally been used to balance hormones and manage the symptoms of PMS and the transitional phases of menopause.”

Ambre Blends, LLC v. doTERRA, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01813-SEB-DML
File Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Plaintiff: Ambre Blends, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Z. Gordon, Jonathan G. Polak, Amy L. Wright of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: doTERRA, Inc., doTERRA International, LLC, Kerry Dodds
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Forgery, Corrective Advertising Damages, Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – North American Van Lines v. North American Master Lines

North American Van Lines Inc. v. North American Master Lines Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00792-PPS-JEM
File Date: Friday, August 02, 2013
Plaintiff: North American Van Lines Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Edward A. Sullivan III, Daniel Tychonievich of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: North American Master Lines Inc.
Cause: Cybersquatting, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge John E. Martin

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Microsoft Corporation v. Mister HardDrive

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

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

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

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Manchester University v. Sportswear

Manchester University Inc v. Sportswear Inc

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00120-RLM-RBC
File Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Plaintiff: Manchester University Inc
Plaintiff Counsel: D Randall Brown of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Sportswear Inc
Cause: Trademark Infringement; False Designation of Origin, False Description, and/or False Representation; Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition,
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – XP Innovation v. Ian Smith

This appears to be Indiana’s first “Sponsored” ad case. Anyone who uses Facebook has seen the “Sponsored” ads on the right side of their screen. Those ads are one of the primary ways that Facebook makes money. Similar to the “keyword advertising” cases revolving around Google’s keyword searches, it now appears the time has come to litigate over what constitutes an acceptable use of someone else’s trademark in one of Facebook’s sponsored ads.

Quick summary of the facts:

1. Defendant ran the following Sponsored ad on Facebook:

Dans Comp Ad

2. Clicking the link takes users to a separate website where they complete a survey and enter their name, email and phone number in hopes of winning a free Dan’s Comp bicycle. Due to the prominent use of the Dan’s Comp logo, that website appears to be affiliated with Dan’s Comp (although it is not).

3. Nobody ever wins a bicycle.

4. Dan’s Comp’s reputation is damaged and the consuming public is potentially harmed.

Stay tuned for updates.

XP Innovation LLC v. Ian Smith

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00106-RLY-WGH
File Date: Friday, April 12, 2013
Plaintiff: XP Innovation LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Amie P. Carter, Louis T. Perry of Baker & Daniels
Defendant: Ian Smith
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Royal Purple v. Liqui Moly GmbH

Here’s an interesting case involving a color trademark. Plaintiff Royal Purple, based in Indianapolis, owns several trademark registrations for the color purple  in connection with high-performance lubricants. The Defendant, German-based Liqui Moly, is accused of selling lubricants with containers/packaging that is purple.

images

Royal Purple LLC v. Liqui Moly GmbH

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00492-SEB-DML
File Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Plaintiff: Royal Purple LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate, Olivia M. Fleming of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Liqui Moly GmbH
Cause: Trademark Infringement; Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin; Dilution; Common Law Trademark Infringement; Common Law Unfair Competition; Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Saeilo Enterprises v. ESCO Imports of Texas

Saeilo Enterprises Inc. v. ESCO Imports of Texas Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00365-JMS-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Plaintiff: Saeilo Enterprises Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Darlene R. Seymour, Jeremiah Pastrick of Continental Enterprises
Defendant: ESCO Imports of Texas Inc.
Cause: Notice of Removal, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, False Designation of Origin or Sponsorship, False Advertising, Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Theft, Counterfeiting, State Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore