Author Archives: John Taggart

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – 7E Spa Licensing Group v. 7EFS of Wheatridge & 7EFS of Highlands Ranch

16 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Here are two related cases (same Plaintiff) where licensing arrangements went bad:

7E Spa Licensing Group LLC et al v. Susan Dier et al

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-01111-RLY-TAB
File Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Plaintiff: 7E Spa Licensing Group LLC, 7E Holdings 1 LLC, 7E LLC
Defendant: Susan Dier, 7EFS of Wheatridge LLC, Spectrum Medspa
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victims Act, Breach of Licensing Agreement, Breach of Operating Agreement, Breach of Equipment Lease, Tortious Interference, Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

7E Spa Licensing Group LLC et al v. 7EFS of Highlands Ranch LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-01109-TWP-TAB
File Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Plaintiff: 7E Spa Licensing Group LLC, 7E Holdings 1 LLC, 7E LLC
Defendant: 7EFS of Highlands Ranch LLC, Spectrum Medspa, Gordon Smith, Jane Smith
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victims Act, Breach of Licensing Agreement, Breach of Operating Agreement, Breach of Equipment Lease, Tortious Interference, Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Another Richard Bell Copyright Suit

26 Friday Jun 2015

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Richard Bell is suing another website for allegedly using an unauthorized copy of his photograph of downtown Indianapolis. In a previous ruling against Mr. Bell (more here), the court was less than pleased with shortcomings in his complaint:

While providing specific facts is not necessary in a complaint, Mr. Bell is required to do more than recite legal conclusions of conduct with generic applicability to various defendants. . . . Legal conclusions are not afforded the assumption of truth. . . . [T]he Court will not afford the assumption of truth to the legal conclusions in Mr. Bell’s complaint. Neither does the Court find any factual allegations that are not legal conclusions, which could entitle him to relief and satisfy the standard of review.

Bell v. McCann, No. 1:13-CV-00799-TWP, 2014 WL 900961, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2014)

Mr. Bell did offer more than legal conclusions in this most recent Complaint (see below) by adding a factual allegation. And although he needed to allege “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Mr. Bell decided to unnecessarily add proof of these alleged facts. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). He included a link to a screenshot of the alleged infringement, although the link just resolves to a blank page.

In any case, don’t use pictures you find on the internet without authorization. Just don’t.

Richard N. Bell v. Proact Search LLC

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-01005-JMS-DKL
File Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Proact Search LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

*Dismissed August 5, 2015*

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Bell v. Find Tickets

20 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Richard Bell is once again alleging copyright infringement for unauthorized use of a photograph of the downtown Indianapolis skyline. This complaint is nearly identical to complaints he has previously filed. In some of those cases, the court has awarded Mr. Bell statutory damages of $2,500. However, the ruling in each of those cases was a default judgment because the defendants failed to answer and defend the allegations. On multiple occasions the court has granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. District Judge Tanya Pratt has, on multiple occasions, called out Mr. Bell for improper practice:

In his pleadings, Mr. Bell has alleged, but has not shown, that he is entitled to relief. His complaint contains formulaic labels and conclusions, but not facts. For example, the complaint under his copyright claim generically alleges that all-originally, twenty-two in total-Defendants: downloaded the Indianapolis Photo; willfully, recklessly, and falsely claimed that it owned the copyright to the photograph; published the photograph for commercial use; engaged in unfair trade practices and competition; and willfully engaged in these acts with oppression, fraud, and malice. . . . While providing specific facts is not necessary in a complaint, Mr. Bell is required to do more than recite legal conclusions of conduct with generic applicability to various defendants. . . . Legal conclusions are not afforded the assumption of truth. . . . [T]he Court will not afford the assumption of truth to the legal conclusions in Mr. Bell’s complaint. Neither does the Court find any factual allegations that are not legal conclusions, which could entitle him to relief and satisfy the standard of review.

Bell v. McCann, No. 1:13-CV-00799-TWP, 2014 WL 900961, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2014)

When looking to Mr. Bell’s motivation for filing this action, the Court finds that Mr. Bell’s motivation is questionable. Mr. Bell has filed a multiplicity of suits in this Court, each involving the same or similar infringement allegations. In many of these copyright infringement suits, Mr. Bell has improperly joined several defendants, thereby saving him extensive filing fees. In this case alone, Mr. Bell sued forty-seven defendants and then quickly offered settlements to defendants who were unwilling to pay for a legal defense. In some of Mr. Bell’s lawsuits, the district court determined that the improperly joined defendants should be severed, and severance was granted. Further, in this case, Mr. Bell lacked any evidentiary support for his claims against Mr. Lantz. The Court is persuaded by Mr. Lantz’s argument that the motivation of Mr. Bell in filing this action appears to be an attempt to extract quick, small settlements from many defendants instead of using the judicial process to protect his copyright against legitimate infringing actors. . . . In this case, Mr. Lantz took a stand against a plaintiff who was using his knowledge and status as a practicing attorney to file meritless suits and to attempt to outmaneuver the legal system.

Bell v. Lantz, No. 1:13-CV-00035-TWP, 2015 WL 3604174, at *2 & *3 (S.D. Ind. June 8, 2015)

After a cursory search, it appears that Mr. Bell has been awarded statutory damages of $40,000 ($2,500 x 16) from default judgments. In Bell v. Lantz, quoted above, Mr. Bell had to pay Mr. Lantz’s attorney’s fees, totaling $33,974.65.

Richard N. Bell v. Find Tickets, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-00973-JMS-MJD
File Date: Friday, June 19, 2015
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Find Tickets, LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update: Baals LLC v. Pro Service Cleaning FW LLC

16 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Baals LLC organizes the Baals Music Festival, a Fort Wayne event occurring annually since 2012. Baals (named for former mayor, Harry Baals) alleges that the defendants, Electric Promotions and Desiar, started organizing similar events in Fort Wayne after seeing the success of the Baals Music Festival. Baals claims that the defendants are using promotional materials that bear striking resemblance to Baals’. They further claim that the defendants are using promotional photographs and videos owned by Baals despite multiple requests to cease.

Baals LLC v. Pro Service Cleaning FW LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-00148-JVB-SLC
File Date: Monday, June 15, 2015
Plaintiff: Baals LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel D. Bobilya, Brandon J. Almas of Bonahoom & Bobilya LLC
Defendant: Pro Service Cleaning FW LLC, Desiar Eyewear LLC
Cause: Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Copyright Infringement, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Susan L Collins