Category Archives: Indiana

Federal Registration vs. Indiana State Trademark Registration

22 Thursday Oct 2026

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Indiana will register a trademark for ten dollars. The filing is on INBiz. The term is five years. The Secretary of State wants a specimen showing the mark is already in use in the state. That is the whole transaction. It is useful. It is also the source of more confident emails than it deserves.

The Indiana Trademark Act, Indiana Code 24-2, is a state registry. It is not the Lanham Act with a smaller map. The Secretary of State’s own page says the office does not resolve ownership fights, and that accepting a filing does not establish rights in the mark. The applicant is told to check other states and the USPTO. A lot of applicants do not.

What the $10 actually buys

A live Indiana registration is evidence that you claimed the mark, for the goods or services you listed, as of the filing. It can support a state-law infringement claim. Common-law rights are preserved either way — IC 24-2-1-15 says the chapter does not wipe them out. If your customers, your sign, and your competitors are all in one Indiana county, the state filing can be a cheap way to put a date on the public record.

That is the “enough” case. A one-location shop. A local service name. No plan to ship, franchise, or open in Louisville. Even then, the filing does not clear the name. It records it.

Where it becomes a trap

The trap is treating the certificate like a deed.

It does not reach Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, or Michigan. A food truck that works the Indiana State Fair and a festival in Cincinnati is already outside the paper. It does not put the mark in the federal database that a later applicant’s search is built on. It does not stop someone else from filing at the USPTO. It does not give you nationwide constructive notice. It does not let you record with Customs. It does not, by itself, get you into federal court.

This blog has already watched the mismatch. In the Legacy chiropractor fight, one side filed a federal application and the other obtained an Indiana registration the same morning. Two offices. Two pieces of paper. One lawsuit in the Northern District. In Twisted Tater, the plaintiff had Indiana registrations — a logo from 2016, the word mark in April 2024 — and filed federally two days before the word-mark state filing. The state certificates did not end the argument. They became part of the complaint.

Same-day races are the tell. If both sides think a ten-dollar filing settles a name that has been in use for years, somebody has been reading the certificate as a judgment. The Secretary of State does not issue those.

The ® still does not attach

The federal registration symbol is for a mark the USPTO has registered. An Indiana certificate is not that. A pending federal application is not that either. Use TM until the federal registration issues, and only on the goods or services in that registration. The longer version is in the 2026 ® post.

Putting ® next to a state registration number is how a local filing becomes an exhibit in somebody else’s fraud paragraph. Do not do that.

Which one to file

File the state mark if you want a cheap Indiana record and you already use the name here. File federally if the name matters outside one market, if you want the presumptions that come with a Principal Register registration, or if you would rather be the person who shows up in a clearance search. The fee math for that filing is in the 2026 fee edition. The state fee is not a discount on the federal one. They are different rights.

You can hold both. Plenty of Indiana businesses do. Just do not tell a competitor, or a customer, that the INBiz receipt is the one that counts nationwide. The Secretary of State already told you it does not.

Stay tuned for the docket notes.

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

Nelson Alarm sues Former Co-owner over nelsonalarm.net

14 Wednesday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In April 2015, Security Masters Corporation bought the assets of Nelson Alarm, Inc. The deal, an asset purchase agreement that Daniel E. Nelson signed personally, included the “Nelson Alarm” business and trademark name and the goodwill that went with it. Security Masters has done business as Nelson Alarm in Indianapolis since the closing. It says it has used the name continuously for the sale and installation of home and business security systems.

In July 2026, Security Masters learned that nelsonalarm.net had been registered on April 19, 2024, and was redirecting traffic to dnaintegrators.com, the site of D-N-A Integrators, Inc. Daniel E. Nelson is the founder and president of that company. The Complaint (below) says the two firms sell to the same buyers. A letter went out on July 8, 2026, demanding that the use stop and that the domain be transferred. The redirect came down. The parties were otherwise unable to find a suitable resolution. Security Masters now seeks the intervention of the Southern District.

Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm v. D-N-A Integrators, Inc. and Daniel E. Nelson

Court Case Number: 1:26-cv-02112-JPH-MKK
File Date: October 1, 2026
Plaintiff: Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate and David A.W. Wong of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendants: D-N-A Integrators, Inc. and Daniel E. Nelson
Cause: Breach of Contract; Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin; Common-law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement; Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Security Masters filed Serial No. 99900763 for NELSON ALARM on June 23, 2026, covering installation and monitoring of security and fire alarms, design and testing of the systems, and related services in Classes 37, 42, and 45. The application was awaiting examination when the complaint was filed. The suit does not need a registration certificate to plead § 1125(a) or the state claims. It does plead that the name was distinctive when the domain was registered, and that the registration was in bad faith.

The relief asked for is the usual set for this kind of file: an injunction against use of NELSON ALARM or anything confusingly similar, transfer of nelsonalarm.net, an accounting, damages, trebling where the statute allows it, statutory damages under the ACPA of up to $100,000 for the domain, destruction of materials bearing the mark, and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

Complaint:

Security Masters Corporation ComplaintDownload

What a BMI Bar Case Is (and Why This Blog Will Usually Skip Them)

05 Monday Oct 2026

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

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.

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

What a Schedule A Case Is (and Why This Blog Usually Skips Them)

02 Friday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

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.”

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

BIOCOTE vs. BIOCOAT…are you confused?

11 Friday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

BioCote Limited sues BioBond Adhesives for trademark infringement in N.D. Ind. (4:26-cv-00086)

BioCote Limited sued Lafayette adhesives maker BioBond Adhesives, Inc. on August 19, 2026, in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, Case No. 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, Indiana trademark and unfair competition claims, and breach of a brand license over BioBond’s BIOCOAT antimicrobial coatings.

The Complaint (below) is a licensee fight, not a stranger-on-the-internet fight. UK company BioCote owns U.S. Registration No. 5,306,757 for the BIOCOTE logo in Class 2 for antimicrobial powder-coating compositions (issued October 10, 2017; first U.S. sales under the mark pleaded as at least 2013). It licenses the chemistry and the mark to partners who put BIOCOTE on finished goods. BioBond, which makes plant-based adhesives and protective coatings in Lafayette, is pleaded as one of those partners. Under the Brand Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, BioBond took a non-exclusive license to the BIOCOTE mark, agreed the IP stayed with BioCote, and promised it “must not use in its business any other trademark similar to the [BioCote] Mark,” must not apply to register “Biocote [or] any similar word,” and must not do anything that would diminish the registration.

BioBond then launched BioCoat SUP250 and BioCoat SWaE250 – water-based polyurethane and epoxy coatings marketed for food-processing surfaces and “defense against mold, fungi, and other microorganisms” – and, the Complaint says, filed a standard-character U.S. application for BIOCOAT covering anti-mold, anti-fungal, and anti-microbial protective coatings. BioCote says it learned of the filing from a watch notice, understood after discussions that BioBond would drop the mark and the application, then found the application still moving. It opposed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91303474) and now wants the Northern District to stop the use.

The pleaded theory is short: BIOCOTE and BIOCOAT share five of seven letters and, BioCote says, sound the same; the goods are antimicrobial coatings sold into overlapping industrial channels; and the customer was already a licensed BIOCOTE partner, which the Complaint says makes source confusion worse, not better. BioCote seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against BIOCOAT, destruction of marked packaging, refusal or cancellation of the application, damages (including a treble/enhanced-damages request on alleged willfulness), and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

BioCote Limited vs. BioBond Adhesives, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ
File Date: August 19, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: BioCote Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie L. Teaford, H. Jonathan Redway, Nicole M. Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin; Indiana Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Breach of Contract
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Gretchen S. Lund
Referred To: Abizer Zanzi

Complaint:

BioCote Limited ComplaintDownload

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.