Broadcast Music, Inc. licenses the public performance of songs in its repertoire. When a bar, restaurant, or grill plays that music without a license, BMI and the publishers sue. The complaint names the venue and, often, the owners. It lists a handful of songs performed on a given night. It asks for statutory damages, an injunction, and fees. Indiana federal courts see these cases on a regular basis. The latest is Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Dagger’z Bar and Grill LLC, 4:26-cv-00265, filed September 24, 2026, against the Jeffersonville bar and two individuals.
That is the whole pattern. There is no fight over who wrote the songs, no fair-use argument that goes anywhere, and rarely an answer. The defendant takes a license, settles, or defaults. A consent judgment or a default judgment follows. The docket is short because the legal question is short: the songs were performed in public, and there was no license.
This blog is for named local disputes with something to read – a mark, a specimen, a story that is not the same story as last year’s bar. A BMI filing is technically a copyright lawsuit, and thus we don’t want to ignore them completely. However, they will no longer get their own post. If one of the BMI lawsuits turns into a real contest over ownership or a defense that is not “we will pay,” that one might earn a write-up. Until then, BMI cases will just appear in the monthly updates.
Stay tuned for new cases with something left to say after the complaint.
If you scan the Northern District of Indiana copyright and trademark indexes, you will keep seeing captions like Plaintiff v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A. That is not a missing name. That is the case. The real defendants – often dozens or hundreds of Amazon, eBay, Temu, or Shopify storefronts – are listed on a sealed exhibit filed with the complaint. Counsel asks for a temporary restraining order, an asset freeze, and leave to serve by email. Many of those defendants never appear. Defaults follow. The docket looks busy but the local story is thin.
These filings started as a Northern District of Illinois habit and migrated. Hammond now sees a regular diet of them. Some are trademark counterfeiting. Some are copyright. The plaintiff is often a brand or a designer with no Indiana office. The “Indiana” connection is venue and a magistrate who will sign a TRO. That is enough for the statute. It is not enough for the kind of post this blog is for.
This site follows named parties, local businesses, university marks, and the occasional food truck that could not sort out a cease-and-desist. A sealed schedule of overseas sellers does not give you that. There is usually no public complaint worth quoting, no Indiana hook beyond the case number, and no answer coming. When a Schedule A filing names a real local defendant or turns into something other than a default mill, it will earn a post. Until then, you will see those captions in the monthly wrap, if at all, and not as a standalone post.
Stay tuned for the cases with names on both sides of the “v.”
Most Indiana trademark and copyright fights that end up in the Northern or Southern District started with a letter, not a complaint. That letter is usually called a cease-and-desist. It is also one of the most misunderstood pieces of paper in this practice.
A cease-and-desist letter is a demand. It is not a lawsuit, not an injunction, and not a finding that anyone has infringed anything. The recipient does not have to agree with it. The sender does not have to file a case if the letter is ignored. Both of those facts surprise people.
What the letter actually is
In the trademark and copyright matters this blog follows, a C&D is typically a lawyer’s letter that:
identifies the mark or work the sender claims;
describes the use the sender objects to;
asks the recipient to stop that use by a date; and
often asks for written confirmation, an accounting, or destruction of inventory.
Sometimes it attaches a registration certificate. Sometimes it attaches screenshots. Sometimes it is two pages. Sometimes it is twenty. Length is not a substitute for a real claim.
Common-law rights can support a letter just as a federal registration can. An Indiana state trademark registration can support one too. None of those pieces of paper turns the letter into an order.
What it can do
Start a conversation that does not require a filing fee. A lot of disputes end here. The recipient rebrands, takes a listing down, or negotiates a short coexistence deal. No docket number is ever assigned. That is a feature, not a failure.
Put the other side on notice. In copyright cases, notice can matter for willfulness and for statutory damages once a registration is in hand. In trademark cases, notice can matter if the dispute later becomes a willfulness or damages fight. The letter is evidence that someone was told, on a date certain, that a senior user objected.
Create a paper trail. If the matter does go to the Northern or Southern District, the complaint will often recite that counsel sent a letter and “was unable to find a suitable resolution.” That sentence is familiar on this blog because it is familiar in the complaints.
Sometimes freeze a use without a TRO. A marketplace seller, a printer, or a small retailer will often pull a listing when they get a letter they take seriously. Amazon, Shopify, and a local sign shop are not going to litigate your brand for you.
Sometimes stop a USPTO application from sailing through. A well-timed letter can lead to an abandonment, an amendment, or a consent agreement before an opposition is even filed. It can also do the opposite and provoke a declaratory-judgment suit. That is a reason to think before you send.
What it does not do
It does not decide who is right. The USPTO may have already allowed a junior mark. A Secretary of State filing may already be sitting in Indianapolis. Neither office has held a trial. A letter from counsel is not a substitute for one.
It does not give you an injunction. Only a court can order someone to stop. Until then, the recipient can keep using the name, keep selling the print, and keep the website up. Many do.
It does not toll a statute or lock in venue. Sending a letter to a Fort Wayne address does not guarantee the case stays in the Northern District. Silence after a letter does not stop a limitations clock by itself.
It does not require the other side to answer. No rule of civil procedure forces a response to a private letter. Some recipients answer through counsel. Some ignore it. Some send their own letter back. All three happen in Indiana.
It does not replace a copyright registration if you want statutory damages and fees. If the plan is a copyright suit, the registration timing rules still apply. A blistering C&D sent the week after the photo went up does not fix a missing registration.
It is not confidential just because you marked it “CONFIDENTIAL” or “FOR SETTLEMENT ONLY.” Labeling helps in some later arguments. It is not a seal. Assume the letter can show up as an exhibit.
Indiana wrinkles worth knowing
Indiana businesses often hold three different kinds of rights at once: common-law use in a county or two, an Indiana state registration, and a federal application or registration. A letter that treats those as the same thing is sloppy. A state registration is not a nationwide right. A federal registration is not a finding that every local user must fold.
The two Indiana districts see a steady run of cases that recite a C&D and then a filing a few weeks or a few months later – food trucks, chiropractors, lawn-care parts, campus events. The letter was the last attempt at a private fix, not the first exhibit in a war plan. When the letter goes out over a holiday week to an institution that is closed, you can expect the reply to be late and the temperature to rise. That is not a legal doctrine. It is a calendar.
There are also files where the better move is not to send a letter: a pending intent-to-use application you do not want to poke, a counterfeiter you do not want to tip before a seizure motion, or a recipient you expect will race to another courthouse for a declaratory-judgment action. “We sent a C&D” is not a required element of a Lanham Act or Copyright Act complaint.
How to read one if it lands on your desk
Read the whole thing, including the exhibits. Check whether the claimed registration actually covers the goods or services in the letter. Check whether the dates work. Do not take the registration symbol in the letterhead as proof of anything by itself. Then decide, with counsel if the risk is real, whether the use is worth keeping.
A short, accurate reply is often better than a long manifesto. A long manifesto is often better than a social-media thread. Neither is required.
How to write one if you are the sender
Be specific about the mark or the work. Be specific about the use. Do not claim a registration you do not have. Do not use the ® symbol on an unregistered mark – this blog has already covered that mistake. Give a date that a human can meet. Say what you want: stop, rebrand, account, assign a domain, sign a consent. “Demand that you cease and desist all infringement” is not a punch list.
If you are not prepared to file in the Northern or Southern District when the date passes, think hard about sending the letter at all. Recipients can tell the difference between a letter that will be followed and a letter that will not.
Stay tuned for the usual Indiana IP litigation docket notes. This one was just about the letter that so often comes first.
Indianapolis University of Indianapolis sued The Trustees of Indiana University on August 11, 2026, in the Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 1:26-cv-01669-JPH-MKK, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution over IU’s use of “IU INDY” for the former IUPUI campus – a phrase the south-side school says is too close to its federally registered UINDY mark.
The Complaint (below) opens as “an action for infringement of U Indy’s well-known federally registered trademark ‘UINDY.’” UIndy has used UINDY in commerce since 2002 and owns a family of live Principal Register registrations, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,755,827 (Class 41 educational services; first use June 3, 2002; registered August 26, 2003), 3,327,194, 3,756,194 (clothing), 3,865,804, 4,039,095, and 6,969,975. After IU and Purdue unwound IUPUI in 2024, IU began branding the downtown Indianapolis campus as IU INDY – including, contemporaneous reporting notes, on athletic goods – and filed intent-to-register applications for IU INDY, IU INDY and design, and IU INDY JAGUARS (Serial Nos. 98/413,770, 98/413,774, 98/413,777, and 98/414,051), which published on October 22, 2024.
UIndy opposed those applications at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on February 19, 2025 (Opposition No. 91297078). The federal complaint now takes the fight out of the Trademark Office and into the Southern District. As pleaded in the public accounts of the Complaint, the two schools compete for the same students in the same city; UIndy alleges “confusion and deception in the marketplace and diversion of potential students and customers of U Indy to IU,” and says it has already seen mix-ups among students, job applicants, delivery drivers, and FAFSA filers. IU’s media office has declined to comment on the litigation. An answer has not been filed.
UIndy seeks to stop display, distribution, marketing, and promotion under IU INDY, plus damages. Two Indianapolis universities, one transposed pair of letters, one federal trademark docket. Stay tuned for updates.
University of Indianapolis vs. The Trustees of Indianapolis University
Court Case Number: 1:26-cv-01669-JPH-MKK File Date: August 11, 2026 Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark Plaintiff: University of Indianapolis Plaintiff Counsel: William J. Barkimer, Daniel Tychonievich of Krieg DeVault LLP Defendant: The Trustees of Indiana University Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement; Federal Unfair Competition; False Designation of Origin Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: James Patrick Hanlon Referred To: M. Kendra Klump
Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.
No-file November is here…will Indiana IP litigators be able to withhold from filing any new lawsuits this month? Time will tell. For now, read on below for updates from October on all pending Indiana trademark and copyright litigation:
Gabet et al. v. Amazon.com. Inc. et al. (ND, filed 1/20/2022) – If you’re following this lawsuit closely, go check PACER, because there are 35 new entries since last month. Most of it involves Amazon’s Motion for Attorney Fees filed on October 4, 2024.
The Center for Gestalt Development, Inc. v. Bowman (SD (11/09/2022) – On October 9, 2024, the Court entered a slightly scathing Order against the plaintiff on Defendant Robine’s Motion to Compel. The plaintiff was ordered to provide a privilege log, amend its discovery responses, and also pay some attorney fees. On October 29, 2024, the plaintiff notified the Court of its compliance, but that was immediately challenged by Defendant Robine the following day with an objection.
Banjo Corporation v. Green Leaf, Inc. (SD 9/29/2023) – A Discovery Conference was held on October 28, 2024 and the parties have 10 days to communicate any outstanding discovery requests.
Stross v. Homestead Properties, Inc. (SD 11/09/2023) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 11, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 15, 2024.
Howarth v. My Sauna World LLC (SD (4/29/2024) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 22, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 23, 2024.
LifeWise, Inc. v. Parrish (ND 7/2/2024) – The plaintiff has been granted until November 5, 2024 to file a reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
AWGI, LLC et al. v. Atlas Mover Group LLC et al. (SD 7/15/2024) – Clerk’s Entry of Default was entered on October 7, 2024. A Motion for Default Judgment and supporting Brief were filed on October 15, 2024.
Pepy v. Angie’s Lists, Inc. d/b/a Angi (SD 7/18/2024) – The plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on October 17, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on October 22, 2024.
