• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Indiana

UINDY vs. IU INDY…are you confused?

09 Wednesday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Indiana University, Litigation Update, University of Indianapolis

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

Complaint:

University of Indianapolis 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.

Delta Faucet Company sues Amazon Counterfeiters in Southern District of Indiana

01 Friday Nov 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Kellie M. Barr, Richard L. Young

Delta Faucet Company is once again pursuing counterfeit faucet sellers from Amazon in the Southern District of Indiana. The Complaint (below), always an enjoyable read, discusses how a company’s trademarks are impacted by unauthorized sellers and their negative online reviews. The counterfeiter defendants typically don’t make an appearance in these lawsuits and thus it usually proceeds right to default judgment. The last Delta counterfeiter sued in Indiana earned himself a damages award of $5.4 million and a permanent injunction, so the “head in the sand” strategy is a really bad one. Let’s wait and see if this case is handled any differently.

Stay tuned for updates.

Delta Faucet Company v. Bundrick et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01901-RLY-KMB
File Date: October 28, 2024
Plaintiff: Delta Faucet Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendants: Justin Bundrick, Andrew Bundrick, John Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Kellie M. Barr

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Carmel Teenager sued over Counterfeit Eric Emanuel Apparel

31 Thursday Oct 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Endorsement, Federal Trademark Infringement, James Patrick Hanlon, Tim A. Baker

The plaintiff in this Indiana trademark lawsuit is a New York-based luxury sportswear designer, Eric Emanuel. The defendant is a Carmel, Indiana teenager allegedly selling counterfeit Eric Emanuel apparel imported from China. Per the Complaint (below), the counterfeit products are allegedly bought by the defendant from China suppliers, stored at his mother’s Carmel home, and promoted and sold online.

The fashion designer seeks the teenager’s profits, actual and compensatory damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. It seems this teenager picked the wrong designer to counterfeit and what seemed like a “get rich quick” scheme could quickly turn to “get poor quick.”

Stay tuned for updates.

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01895-JPH-TAB
File Date: October 25, 2024
Plaintiff: EE Holding Group LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Anne K. Ricchiuto of Peele Law Group
Defendant: PDGROWTH LLC, Patrick D. Garton
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Endorsement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

JUMPSTART COMMUNICATIONS vs. JUMPSTART COMMUNICATION…are you confused?

31 Thursday Oct 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Civil Theft, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Holly A. Brady, RICO Violations, Susan L. Collins, Tortious Interference with Business Relationship, Tortious Interference with Contract

The parties to this new Indiana trademark lawsuit have a long personal history, including previously being married, but we’re taking a look at the case for its intellectual property claims, i.e. trademark infringement between the marks JUMPSTART COMMUNICATIONS and JUMPSTART COMMUNICATION. The companies offer the same services, telecommunications construction services, in the same geographic area. The Complaint (below) provides some details about the defendant’s decision to choose a similar name, along with other allegedly damaging behavior, including solicitation of customers and employees.

Stay tuned for updates, although I don’t expect this case to last very long, at least the trademark claims. There are some additional claims that may linger even if the trademark issue is resolved, for example, by a name change.

Jumpstart Communications LLC v. Jumper et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00447-HAB-SLC
File Date: October 22, 2024
Plaintiff: Jumpstart Communications LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carrie E. Sheridan, J.Blake Hike, Brendan C. Ruff, Stephanie Fleming of Carson LLP
Defendant: Ryan Jumper, Jumpstart Communication LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Unfair Competition, RICO Violations, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Business Relationship, Civil Theft
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Trademark Declaratory Judgment Action filed in Indiana over Protective Trading Card Sleeves

01 Tuesday Oct 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Declaratory Judgment of No Dilution, Declaratory Judgment of No Unfair Competition, declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Declaratory Judgment of Trademark Invalidity, Mark J. Dinsmore, Richard L. Young

BCW Diversified, Inc. (“BCW”) is a Middletown, Indiana-based manufacturer of protective card sleeves for collectible trading cards. In this new federal lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Indiana, BCW has filed declaratory judgment complaint against Defendant Ultra PRO International, LLC (“Ultra Pro”). BCW seeks a declaration that Ultra Pro owns no valid, enforceable rights in the following marks: TOPLOADER, PENNY SLEEVES, PRO-BINDER, MINI SNAP, CHROMAFUSION TECHNOLOGY, and DECK VAULT.

Ultra Pro owns U.S. trademark registrations for the disputed trademarks, but BCW asserts that the registrations are invalid. BCW claims that it has used the terms “top loaders,” “penny sleeves,” and “mini-snap” for thirty years in connection with the manufacture, promotion, and sale of protective card sleeves for collectible trading cards. BCW maintains that its use of these terms is not an infringing use because the disputed terms are generic or, at a minimum, merely descriptive of the goods at issue. Allegedly, third parties throughout the industry make wide use of the disputed trademarks in a descriptive fashion.

BCW received cease-and-desist demands from Ultra Pro and a lawsuit was filed against it by Ultra Pro in the Northern District of Illinois in June 2024. Ultra Pro has also filed a lawsuit against 133 of BCW’s retailers.

Stay tuned to see how Ultra Pro responds to this Declaratory Judgment action.

BCW Diversified, Inc. v. Ultra Pro International, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01699-RLY-MJD
File Date: September 30, 2024
Plaintiff: BCW Diversified, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Marc C. Gravino, Joel M. Huotari of WilliamsMcCarthy, LLP
Defendant: Ultra Pro International, LLC
Cause: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Declaratory Judgment of No Dilution, Declaratory Judgment of No Unfair Competition, Declaratory Judgment of Trademark Invalidity
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (332)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (34)
  • Indiana (609)
  • Indianapolis (52)
  • Intellectual Property (672)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (602)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (217)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (371)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (370)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...