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

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 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
PlaintiffFortres Grand Corporation
Plaintiff CounselChristopher R. Putt of May Oberfell Lorber
DefendantWarner Bros Entertainment Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
CourtNorthern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Keystone Management Systems v. William Clyde Moore Jr.

Here’s another case involving misappropriated architectural drawings. Home builders, you should know by now that architectural drawings are protected by copyright law. If there’s a floor plan you really like, just pay for it! The price is beans (approx. $700-1500) against the cost of building a home.

Keystone Management Systems Inc. et al v. William Clyde Moore Jr. et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00735-SEB-DML
File Date: Monday, May 06, 2013
Plaintiff: Keystone Management Systems Inc.Lockridge Homes-Indianapolis LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul J. Carroll of Mercer Belanger PC
Defendant: William Clyde Moore Jr., Carol Cooper
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Trial Scheduled for Indiana’s First Keyword Advertising Case

Indiana’s first keyword advertising case is now set for trial. However, don’t hold your breath if you’re waiting for an answer to whether the purchase and use of a competitor’s trademark in keyword advertising is trademark infringement. The trial won’t take place for over a year.

On May 6, a Scheduling Order set a bench trial for October 6, 2014 (at 9:30 AM in Room #216, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Sarah Evans Barker). A settlement conference was held  between the parties in February 2013 but no settlement was reached. Based on the importance of this question to the parties involved, I expect this case to go to trial, however long that may take.

In the meantime, you can review the Answer to Complaint and Answer to Counterclaims below. Stay tuned for updates.

DEFENDANT SERVICEMAGIC, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS:

 

ANGIE’S LIST’S ANSWER TO SERVICEMAGIC’S COUNTERCLAIMS:

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – William James v. Tyler Perry

The case involves Tyler Perry’s new movie, Temptation. Plaintiff, an Indiana resident, alleges to have written a very similar screenplay that he gave to “an associate of Oprah Winfrey” a couple years ago to give to Perry. Plaintiff received no further contact regarding the script and learned of the similarities when Perry’s movie was promoted in early 2013. Plaintiff now seeks remuneration via a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Temptation involves “[a]n explosive romance about the seductive dangers of the forbidden, this film tells the provocative and sensual story of Judith, an ambitious married woman whose obsessive passion for a handsome billionaire leads to betrayal, danger and a choice that will forever alter the course of her life.”

William James v. Tyler Perry et al

Court Case Number: 2:13-cv-00139-RLM-PRC
File Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Plaintiff: William James
Plaintiff Counsel: Darnail Lyles – Attorney at Law
Defendant: Tyler PerryTyler Perry StudiosLions Gate Entertainment
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (676)

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00676-SEB-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff CounselPaul J Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement
CourtSouthern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (675)

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00675-TWP-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff CounselPaul J Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement
CourtSouthern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (674)

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00674-LJM-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff CounselPaul J Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement
CourtSouthern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Larry J. McKinney
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (673)

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00673-WTL-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff CounselPaul J Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement
CourtSouthern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (672)

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00672-JMS-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff CounselPaul J Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement
CourtSouthern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (671)

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00671-JMS-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff CounselPaul J Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates PLLC
Defendant: John Doe
Cause: Copyright Infringement
CourtSouthern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore