Category Archives: Copyright

Carrington College accused of providing Personal Training students with copies of exams in advance

11 Wednesday Jul 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff National Federal of Professional Trainers, Inc., headquartered in Lafayette, Indiana, brings this action to prevent, and obtain damages for, Defendant Carrington College’s unauthorized copying and distribution of NFPT’s proprietary Certified Personal Trainer (“CPT”) credentialing examinations. Carrington College is a for-profit educational institution headquartered in Sacramento, California.

The Complaint alleges that “Carrington had given students copies of confidential and proprietary NFPT examinations, and then quizzed students on the copied examination questions until students memorized the answers to each specific question.”

Stay tuned for updates.

National Federation of Professional Trainers, Inc. v. Carrington College, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:18-cv-00047-JVB-JEM
File Date: Monday, July 2, 2018
Plaintiff: National Federal of Professional Trainers, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Anthony E. Dowell, Richard T. McCaulley, Kenley Eaglestone of McCaulley Dowell
Defendant: Carrington College, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Breach of Contract, Fraud
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

Copyright lawsuit to test transformative use defense for digitally manipulated images

05 Tuesday Jun 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

First, go scroll through Exhibit A to the Complaint for this copyright lawsuit (starts at page 13 of Complaint, below). Besides displaying beautiful artwork, it also provides a nice visual set-up for what should be a really interesting case involving digital manipulation and transformative use.

The Plaintiff is a prominent visual artist primarily known for her original abstract art and mixed media paintings. She has sold over 1,500 original paintings worldwide.

The Defendant is an artist who creates his works by digitally manipulating existing images through computer programs such as Photoshop. Defendant sells his digitally manipulated artwork via the same online retailers as Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff made contact with Defendant, who had been provided as a reference by an online distributor, for the first time in 2014. Defendant responded with a pleasant “I just took a look at your art – wow! You have a new fan.” Apparently he wasn’t kidding. 

In 2017, Plaintiff discovered that 22 works for sale by Defendant were digitally manipulated derivatives of her own artwork. Photoshop had been used by Defendant to rotate, invert, stretch, filter, all the tricks…anyway, you can view the final results in Exhibit A, where Plaintiff sets forth a side-by-side comparison for all 22 works.

In a phone call between Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant stated that his intent was not to “copy anyone’s work in a fashion where it would be confused and cost another person a sale.”

Based on a review of Exhibit A, this blog post is going to assume that Defendant did in fact digitally manipulate Plaintiff’s images. The question then becomes whether the digital manipulation and subsequent commercial use was an infringing use or a fair use.

Defendant’s entire art style seems to heavily rely upon digital manipulation of other people’s artwork, so I would expect him to present a strong, well-reasoned argument for “transformative use.” Transformative uses take the original copyrighted work and transform its appearance or nature to such a high degree that the use no longer qualifies as infringing.

Arguing a “transformative use” defense will involve answering the following two questions in the context of Defendant’s style of digital manipulation:

  • Has the material taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
  • Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?

It will be interesting to see how both parties answer these questions as the lawsuit proceeds. Stay tuned for updates. 

Keck v. Lawrence et al.

Court Case Number: 2:18-cv-00250-RLM-DLP
File Date: Friday, June 1, 2018
Plaintiff: Michel Keck
Plaintiff Counsel: Matthew K. Higbee, Ryan E. Carreon of Higbee & Associates
Defendant: John Mark Lawrence dba Mark Lawrence Art Gallery; Does 1-25
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Robert L. Miller
Referred To: Doris L. Pryor

Complaint: 

Jewelry Designer sues for copyright infringement of Hearty Love Pendant Design

23 Wednesday May 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This copyright infringement action involves a copyrighted jewelry design, specifically Plaintiff’s “Hearty Love” Design and the associated “Heartlines Love Pendant.”

The parties have several years of history working together, as detailed in the Complaint (below). While Plaintiff was working with Defendant Droste, a jeweler, to create her Heartlines Love Pendant, Droste allegedly took her design and had it made by Defendant Shah, a jewelry manufacturer. The Defendants’ allegedly infringing design is now widely sold.

Corlinea, LLC v. Drostes Jewelry Shoppe et al.

Court Case Number: 3:18-cv-00099-RLY-MPB
File Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Plaintiff: Corlinea, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: C. Richard Martin of Martin IP Law Group, PC
Defendant: Drostes Jewelry Shoppe Inc., Shah Diamonds, Inc. d/b/a Shah Luxury
Cause: Federal Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Vera Bradley sues numerous eBay sellers over counterfeit goods

27 Tuesday Mar 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The defendants in this lawsuit are alleged to have sold counterfeit Vera Bradley products on eBay since as early as January 2016.

Vera Bradley Designs, Inc. v. Denny et al.

Court Case Number: 1:18-cv-00070
File Date: Monday, March 26, 2018
Plaintiff: Vera Bradley Designs, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mark D. Scudder of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Michael R. Gray of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A.
Defendants: Jennifer Denny, Austin Devin 2 Denny Boys, LLC, Darlene Nicholas, Amanda Whitfield, and Ilene Simpson
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD
Referred To: TBD

Complaint:

Copyright lawsuit over movie script removed to Northern District of Indiana

06 Monday Nov 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

This lawsuit was removed from St. Joseph Circuit Court, Indiana, to the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division based on copyright preemption.

The Plaintiff alleges that he sent an original script and revisions to Defendant, which they used to create and sell a motion picture.

Jones v. Brioche and Mayo, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:17-cv-00289
File Date: Friday, November 3, 2017
Plaintiff: William Jones
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew B. Jones, Margaret Marnocha of Jones Law Office LLC
Defendant: Brioche and Mayo, LLC
Cause: Breach of Contract, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD
Referred To: TBD

Notice of Removal:

STOP THE DROP: Cell Phone Case vs. Seat Gap Filler…are you confused?

09 Wednesday Aug 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

This a declaratory judgment action for both non-infringement of trademark and copyright. The declaratory judgment Plaintiff is Loopy, which sells cell phone cases that include a finger grip on the back of the case.  Loopy uses the trademark STOPTHEDROP in association with its cell phone cases, which you can see have a finger loop to prevent drops.

The Defendant, Drop Stop LLC of Los Angeles, California (as seen on Shark Tank), has a U.S. trademark registration for STOP THE DROP in connection with “IC 12 – Automobile interior accessory, namely, durable and flexible wedge, which can be expanded or contracted, to fill gap between front seat and center console of an automobile preventing objects from dropping into gap.” In other words, a seat gap filler.

Drop Stop sent a trademark cease-and-desist letter demanding that Loopy stop all use of STOPTHEDROP. Instead, Loopy has filed the action in the Northern District of Indiana for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of Drop Stop’s trademark and copyrights. Stay tuned for updates.

While researching, I spotted a few other interesting uses of STOP THE DROP in the USPTO database:

Loopy Cases LLC v. Drop Stop, LLC

Court Case Number: 2:17-cv-00331-JVB-APR
File Date: Friday, August 4, 2017
Plaintiff: Loopy Cases LLC, John Wangercyn
Plaintiff Counsel: Peter J. Shakula of Wood Phillips
Defendant: Drop Stop, LLC
Cause: Declaratory Judgement of Trademark Non-Infringement, Declaratory Judgment of Copyright Non-Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Referred To: Andrew P. Rodovich

Complaint: 

GNARLY HEAD wine vs. GNARLY GROVE hard cider…are you confused?

02 Wednesday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff Gnarly Head, a California winery, asserts that Columbus, Indiana’s Simmons Winery has adopted a confusingly similar trademark and trade dress with their new line of Gnarly Grove hard cider.

I’ll leave the question of confusion for you. What I’d really like to know is who is mixing wine and hard cider??? Tasty?

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-10-31-06-am

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-10-22-45-am

Delicato Vineyards v. Gnarly Grove Cider Co.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-02932-TWP-DKL
File Date: Friday, October 28, 2016
Plaintiff: Delicato Vineyards
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Cristina A. Costa of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP
Defendant: Gnarly Grove Cider Co.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Denise K. LaRue

Complaint:

Richard Bell Sues IU, Purdue, A Place for Mom

21 Wednesday Sep 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Richard Bell strikes again…and again…and again. Mr. Bell has filed eight more copyright lawsuits over his Indianapolis skyline photo. Several individuals, a senior living facility, Indiana University and Purdue University all join the illustrious list of Bell defendants.

People, stop using Mr. Bell’s photographs!

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 6.52.34 AM

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-02434-TWP-DKL
File Date:  Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Buckley
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Denise K. LaRue

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-02436-JMS-DML
File Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Tipton
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-02451-SEB-DML
File Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: A Place for Mom, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-02463-TWP-DML
File Date: Thursday, September 15, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Indiana University
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-02482-SEB-DKL
File Date: Friday, September 16, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: East Coast Health Insurance, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Denise K. LaRue

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-02488-RLY-DML
File Date: Friday, September 16, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Purdue University
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Court Case Number: 1:206-cv-02491
File Date: Sunday, September 18, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Powell et al
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-2501
File Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Hornberger Imports, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Artist sues Boat Dealer over Breach of License

12 Monday Sep 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Pursuant to an agreement, Plaintiff created and applied artwork to a limited number of Defendant’s boats.

Defendant is alleged to have continued selling boats with substantially similar artwork outside the terms of the original license.

The Art of Design, Inc. v. Pontoon Boat, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00595-JVB-JEM
File Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Plaintiff: The Art Of Design, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: John D. LaDue, Sean J. Quinn of LaDue | Curran | Kuehn
Defendant: Pontoon Boat, LLC d/b/a Bennington and Bennington Marine, Hawkeye Boat Sales
Cause: Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition, Inducing Copyright Infringement, Violations of DMCA
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

Exhibit A:

screen-shot-2016-09-12-at-12-14-38-pm

Rich Bell sues Aramark Corporation over unauthorized use of Indianapolis skyline photograph

29 Monday Aug 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

This time around Mr. Bell has snagged a big fish, the Aramark Corporation, specifically the Indianapolis branch of their Refreshment Services Division.

Somebody has unwisely used Mr. Bell’s skyline photograph on the Indianapolis branch’s website: http://www.aramarkrefreshments.com/webstore/nav/locations/Indianapolis.action

Use the “Richard Bell” tag at left to view his other litigation.

Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 6.52.34 AM

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-02291-SEB_MJD
File Date: Friday, August 26, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Aramark Corporation
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Exhibit B (Screen Shot of Defendant’s website):