Category Archives: Indianapolis

October 2024 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

01 Friday Nov 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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:

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc. (ND, filed 8/31/2021) –  No update this month.

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 Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel et al (ND, filed 5/18/2022) – No update this month.

Honest Abe Roofing franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al. (SD, filed 9/7/2022) – No update this month. 

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.

National College Resources Foundation v. The Strong Friends LLC et al. (ND 5/4/2023) –  No update this month.

Nickel and Dimes Incorporated v. Noah’s Arcade LLC et al (ND 7/25/2023) – No update this month.

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.

Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. v. Dr. Permagreen, LLC et al. (ND 10/06/2023) –  On October 24, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, giving the defendants 14 days to supplement their discovery responses.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v. Luxury Mattress & Furniture, LLC (ND 11/09/2023) – No update this month.

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.

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al v. CNB Retailers, LLC et al. (ND 2/08/2024) – A Stipulated Consent Injunction Order was entered on October 16, 2024.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. et al. (SD 2/14/2024) – Answers to Interrogatories were submitted by both Key Bank and Ally Bank, in furtherance of the plaintiff’s pursuit of garnishment.

Sadowski v. Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV (SD 2/21/2024) – No update this month.

Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Company, LLC (SD 3/1/2024) – No update this month.

Rigsby v. All Seasons Roofing (ND 3/14/2024) – No update this month. 

Guangzhou Shima Decoration Materials Co., Ltd v. Shenzhen Ruimingxiang Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (SD 4/11/2024) – No update this month.

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.

Peugh et al. v. Nadler et al. (SD 5/3/2024) – Dismissal papers are due by November 7, 2024.

NutraMax Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Abumayyaleh Bros LLC et al. (SD 6/20/2024) – On October 17, 2024, the plaintiff advised the court of ongoing settlement negotiations and a further update will be provided by November 18, 2024.

Miller v. Empire News LLC (SD 6/26/2024) – No update this month.

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.

Forest River, Inc. v. Sharpline Converting, Inc. (ND 7/2/2024) – A Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is scheduled on November 19, 2024.

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.

Hiker Industries, LLC v. Hyk Outdoors LLC (SD 8/5/2024) – The lawsuit has been settled and dismissal papers are due by December 16, 2024.

My Market LLC v. Batth Markets Inc. et al. (SD 8/6/2024) – The Complaint was served as of October 7, 2024.

Legacy Chiropractic, LLC v. Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC (ND 8/9/2024) – The defendant filed its Answer on October 2, 2024. A Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is scheduled on November 26, 2024.

BCW Diversified, Inc. v. Ultra Pro International, LLC (SD 9/30/2024) – Waiver of service was executed on October 29, 2024. Kathryn Kent has filed an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.

Jumpstart Communications LLC v. Jumper et al. (ND 10/22/2024) – No update yet.

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC et al. (SD 1o/25/2024) – No update yet.

Delta Faucet Company v. Bundrick et al. (SD 10/28/2024) – No update yet.

September 2024 Updates

August 2024 Updates – July 2024 Updates – June 2024 Updates – May 2024 Updates

April 2024 Updates – March 2024 Updates – February 2024 Updates – January 2024 Updates

December 2023 Updates – December 2022 Updates –  December 2021 Updates

Hot Girl Walk v. Hot Walk Indy…are you confused?

17 Wednesday Jul 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

An Indianapolis-based inclusive walking group is being sued for trademark infringement by the national walking group which had inspired its original name. The plaintiff operates a national women’s walking group called Hot Girl Walk, a name inspired by Megan Thee Stallion’s song “Hot Girl Summer.” The group promotes walking events for women across the country and has some significant sponsorships. In 2019, the defendant started a walking group called Hot Girl Walk Indy, which was later shortened to Hot Walk Indy. If this was the extent of the conflict, I suspect a federal lawsuit might never have been filed. However, while the trademark infringement claims in the Complaint (below) are the focus of this IP blog, the plaintiff was likely more concerned about an alleged series of defamatory statements, doxing, and aggressive bullying, all detailed in the Complaint. Standing alone, Hot Walk Indy might not cause a conflict with Hot Girl Walk, but when it’s combined with a group campaign of actively seeking to undermine the Hot Girl Walk brand, it puts a plaintiff in a position where they have to file a lawsuit.

It’s difficult to see how keeping the name of a relatively new local walking group would be worth the cost of defending a federal lawsuit, but perhaps the defense funds can be crowdfunded among the group. Considering the other activities detailed in the Complaint, the defendant may already be in too deep despite what name they use and the other group members may stay away for fear of being named as additional defendants.

Stay tuned for updates.

Hot Girl Walk LLC v. Springer d/b/a Hot Walk Indy

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01187-JMS-TAB
File Date: July 15, 2024
Plaintiff: Hot Girl Walk LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Joseph R. Delehanty of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: Casey Springer d/b/a Hot Walk Indy
Cause: Tortious Interference with Business Relationship, Defamation, Business Disparagement, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane E. Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Indianapolis Company sued for sale of Unauthorized Animal Health Supplements on Amazon

25 Tuesday Jun 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Nutramax Laboratories (“Nutramax”) produces health supplements for companion animals. In February 2024, Nutramax filed a trademark lawsuit against a Fort Wayne company for the sale of unauthorized animal health supplements on Amazon. Nutramax is now back in the Southern District in Indiana pursuing an Indianapolis company for similar violations.

It must feel like whack-a-mole for the plaintiff’s counsel, as unauthorized resellers can disappear just as fast as they appear. Nutramax has no option but to go through this legal process in order to get Amazon to take action and remove the unauthorized sales. In the context of health supplements for animals, potentially leading to illness or death if unsafe, this plaintiff simply can’t sit back and take no action when it sees counterfeit or unauthorized sales.

Stay tuned for updates on this case and look out for the June Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update in the next few days for the latest on the February lawsuit (and all other pending Indiana IP cases).

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al v. Abumyyaleh Bros LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01047-SEB-MKK
File Date: June 20, 2024
Plaintiff: Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Blake P. Holler of Krieg Default LLP
Defendant: Abumayyaleh Bros LLC, Mohammad Abumayyaleh
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Description, Indiana Common Law Tortious Interference with a Contract
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Complaint:

Indianapolis Advertising Agency sued over Song Clip in 2016 Facebook Post

28 Tuesday Nov 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

An Indianapolis-based advertising agency is being sued for using a 5-second song clip in a promotional video posted on their Facebook page on March 11, 2016.

The plaintiff, a musical group called the Quad City DJ’s, alleges that they first discovered the “infringing” post on June 20, 2023. Approximately 5-6 seconds of the plaintiff’s song, “Space Jam,” are played in the background of a video promoting Dribble to Work Day during the NCAA Women’s Final Four. The short promotional video, still viewable here, has only 294 views since being published in 2016. How many of those views are the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel?

This lawsuit should serve as a warning to all businesses to go back and review old social media posts, checking for any unauthorized photos, music, videos, etc. Old social media content is now being scanned by AI bots, even “watching” old videos, and a federal lawsuit could always be lurking. While real damages might be low, copyright law allows for a plaintiff to recover statutory damages, legal costs, and attorney fees.

Consider whether it’s time for your business to delete some old social media content.

Watson Music Group, LLC v. Borshoff, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-02117-TWP-KMB
File Date: November 22, 2023
Plaintiff: Watson Music Group, LLC d/b/a Quadrasound Music
Plaintiff Counsel: Craig Sanders, Esq. of Sanders Law Group
Defendant: Borshoff, Inc.
Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Kellie M. Barr

Complaint:

Photography Lawsuit filed against Carmel Vietnamese Restaurant

16 Thursday Nov 2023

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

It seems we can’t go more than a few days without a new photography copyright lawsuit in Indiana. The defendant this time is a Carmel, Indiana-based Vietnamese restaurant called Pho Real. They apparently used one of the plaintiff’s photographs of noodles, which I’m guessing they found on Google Images, on their restaurant’s website without authorization.

Businesses, you should prioritize an immediate audit of your company’s website to determine whether you have authority (via ownership, license, fair use, etc.) to use every photograph. If not, even if it’s just a blurry partial photo, it seems that your use could quickly become the subject of a federal copyright lawsuit.

Matsumoto v. Pho Real LLC

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-02059-SEB-KMB
File Date: November 15, 2023
Plaintiff: Shoichi Matsumoto
Plaintiff Counsel: Jay Campbell Miller of SRIPLAW, P.A.
Defendant: Pho Real LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Kellie M. Barr

Complaint: