Author Archives: Kenan Farrell

Wounded Warrior Project sues Indiana Veteran over Critical Comments on Website

25 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Nonprofit

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff, Wounded Warrior Project, is a Virginia-based nonprofit that claims to provide comfort items to service members injured in combat. Defendant Help Indiana Vets operates an Indiana-based website (run by a U.S. Army veteran) that is critical of Plaintiff’s operations, asserting that “Wounded Warrior Project is a Fraud.” Wounded Warrior Project responded by filing this lawsuit in an attempt to force Defendant to change the website.

All Veterans Memorial

Defendant seems intent on fighting the lawsuit on behalf of “all Wounded Warriors” and is soliciting donations for a legal defense fund. Veterans, bloggers, free speech and anti-censorship advocates will likely be interested in supporting Defendant in this litigation but it will be an uphill battle since Plaintiff already has a team of high-powered attorneys.

Stay tuned for updates.

Wounded Warrior Project, Inc. v. Help Indiana Vets, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01857-RLY-DML
File Date: Thursday, November 21, 2013
Plaintiff: Wounded Warrior Project, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jessica M. Lindemann of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Help Indiana Vets, Inc., Dean M. Graham
Cause: False Advertising, Criminal Deception, Defamation, Common Law Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with Business Relationships, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Eli Lilly files 2 lawsuits over pet brands ELANCO, COMFORTIS, TRIFEXIS and PANORAMIS

17 Sunday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Eli Lilly has filed two related cases involving its many lines of pet medicines, including ELANCO veterinary preparations, COMFORTIS flea-control preparations and TRIFEXIS and PANORAMIS pet medicines. The Defendants allegedly advertise and sell Australian and European version of the pet medicines branded with Eli Lilly’s trademarks through their respective websites.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Graham Nelson et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01800-JMS-DML
File Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Plaintiff: Eli Lilly and Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Jan M. Carroll of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Graham Nelson, Zoja Pty. Ltd.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Advertising, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Eli Lilly and Company v. Sebastian Wiradharma et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01802-RLY-TAB
File Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Plaintiff: Eli Lilly and Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Jan M. Carroll of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Sebastian Wiradharma, Singpet Pte. Ltd.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Advertising, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Ambre Blends v. doTERRA

14 Thursday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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.”

[Update 1/6/2015] Case Dismissed

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 – Windstream Technologies v. Rambo, LLC

06 Wednesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

pgfu1

Here’s yet another tale of a dealer relationship gone bad. Plaintiff, a California company operating in North Vernon, Indiana, is a wind turbine manufacturer.  Defendant Rambo, LLC, located in Madison, Indiana, was contracted to provide component parts and act as an authorized dealer of Plaintiff’s products in certain territories.

See the Complaint below for the Plaintiff’s version of how things went wrong. Hopefully for the rest of us these parties can sort their differences soon and get back to providing more wind energy for Indiana.

Stay tuned for updates.

Windstream Technologies, Inc. v. Rambo, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 4:13-cv-00180-SEB-WGH
File Date: Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Plaintiff: Windstream Technologies, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Matthew Wilder Lorch of Lorch Law Office, LLC
Defendant: Rambo, LLC, Rambo Montrow Corporation, Rick Keebler, Does 1 through 10
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, Passing Off, Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract, Interference with Contract and Prospective Economic Advantage
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.

 

Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) Update Released By USPTO

01 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013, the Office issued the October 2013 update of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP). The update (which is posted on the USPTO website here), includes precedential case law and other changes that have occurred since the April 2013 TMEP revision. In a few areas, existing procedures have been revised or new procedures have been added. For a listing of all the changes, see Changes in the TMEP October 2013 Edition.

The TMEP is published to provide trademark examining attorneys in the USPTO, trademark applicants, and attorneys and representatives for trademark applicants with a reference work on the practices and procedures relative to prosecution of applications to register marks in the USPTO. The TMEP contains guidelines for Examining Attorneys and materials in the nature of information and interpretation, and outlines the procedures which Examining Attorneys are required or authorized to follow in the examination of trademark applications.

October 2013 TMEP: http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2013/d1e2.xml