• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Indianapolis

Oakley sues Indianapolis Indoor Baseball Training Facility over Sale of Counterfeit Sunglasses

12 Friday Aug 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Federal Trademark Infringement, Mark J. Dinsmore, Richard L. Young

The defendants in this counterfeiting lawsuit operate an indoor baseball and softball training facility in Indianapolis. The plaintiff, Oakley, has accused the defendants of selling counterfeit sunglasses. The plaintiff’s investigators purchased counterfeit sunglasses from the defendants at the Edinburgh Sports Complex (i.e. a place where baseball is played) and at the defendant’s retail location in Indianapolis.

Oakley seeks an injunction, statutory damages, attorney fees’ and costs. Oakley is probably equally interested in obtaining information about the source of the counterfeit goods, possibly somewhere overseas.

Stay tuned for updates.

Oakley, Inc. v. Batter’s Box Training, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD
File Date: August 11, 2022
Plaintiff: Oakley, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Zachary D. Prendergast of Robbins, Kelly, Patterson & Tucker, LPA
Defendants: Batter’s Box Training, LLC, Shawn Lessor, Brandi Pierson
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Indianapolis Mexican Restaurant sued for Piracy over 2018 Alvarez v. Fielding Boxing Match

16 Thursday Dec 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Federal Copyright Infringement, Mario Garcia, Satellite and Cable Piracy, Tanya Walton Pratt

Here’s more support for a copyright small claims court. Indianapolis-based Mexican restaurant La Jalisco is being sued for copyright infringement and piracy after allegedly showing (without authorization, obviously) a Canelo Alvarez vs. Rocky Fielding boxing match in their west-side restaurant on December 15, 2018.

For non-boxing fans, Alvarez is currently ESPN.com’s #1 “Pound-for-Pound” boxer (for comparison, the legendary “Gypsy King” Tyson Fury ranks #5). So, while 3 years ago, it was a big Saturday night fight.

Consider what a restaurant has to pay to properly show a fight. A few hundred dollars at most, probably closer to one hundred, and definitely less than the $600 filing fee for a federal lawsuit. Certainly less than the $150,000 statutory damages sought by the plaintiff. The Complaint (below) doesn’t reference any settlement communications between the parties, but you have to think that the defendants were given an opportunity to settle by paying a reasonable license fee at one point.

On the other hand, if La Jalisco didn’t show the fight, they didn’t show the fight. There are usually two sides to every story, so stay tuned for the Defendants’ response.

Innovative Sports Management Inc. v. La Jalisco LLP

Case Number: 1:21-cv-03040-TWP-MG
File Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2021
Plaintiff: Innovative Sports Management Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media
Plaintiff Counsel: Ryan R. Janis of Jekielek & Janis LLP
Defendant: La Jalisco LLP d/b/a Taqueria Jalisco a/k/a Jalisco Restaurant Bar, Joan Brito, Victoria A. Morales
Cause: Satellite and Cable Piracy, Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Mario Garcia

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

IU Health sues Methodist Sports Medicine to stop use of “Methodist” name

02 Tuesday Nov 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception, False Designation of Origin, Jane Magnus-Stinson

For nearly 100 years, Methodist Hospital of Indiana has been operated by the plaintiff Methodist Health Group and its predecessors.

In 1990, the defendant in this lawsuit, Thomas A. Brady Sports Medicine Center, P.C., began operating a sports medicine clinic on the Methodist Hospital campus called “Methodist Sports Medicine.” The clinic has now expanded to several locations around Central Indiana.

In 1997, plaintiff IU Health took over operation of Methodist Hospital and gained the exclusive right to use and sublicense the METHODIST trademark.

Jump forward to 2019 and the Defendant has apparently decided to locate a sports medicine clinic on a Franciscan Alliance health care campus, a major competitor of plaintiff IU Health.

As a result, IU Health wants the Defendant to stop using “Methodist” in their name, and the Defendant has apparently refused to comply, hence this lawsuit.

If everything is as it seems in the Complaint (below), I’d expect an eventual rebrand from the Defendant, but it’s interesting that it took a lawsuit for a rebrand to occur. A new home with a new hospital group surely calls for a brand refresh/update? Especially if you’re just a sublicensee of your original name. Either way, things are rarely exactly as a Complaint makes them seem. Stay tuned for the Defendant’s side of the story.

Indiana University Health, Inc et al. v. Thomas A. Brady Sports Medicine Center, P.C.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD
File Date: November 1, 2021
Plaintiff: Indiana University Health, Inc., Methodist Health Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, Elizabeth A. Charles of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Thomas A. Brady Sports Medicine Center, P.C.
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Delta Faucet Company sues Russian Counterfeiters over Unauthorized Amazon Sales

29 Monday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act, James R. Sweeney II, Tim A. Baker

Delta Faucet Company is going after Russian counterfeit faucet sellers in the Southern District of Indiana. In a lengthy and well-drafted Complaint (below), the Plaintiff details how a company’s trademarks are impacted by negative online marketplace reviews and unauthorized sellers. The lawsuit potentially exposes a gray market existing within Amazon’s “Fulfillment by Amazon” services that allows for counterfeit sales, leading to invalid product warranties, disgruntled consumers, and a damaged brand.

This lawsuit, along with Delta’s upgraded authorized seller policies (described in the Complaint), could serve as a good model for other companies dealing with online counterfeits. Although I predict the individual counterfeiters will simply disappear to continue on behind other aliases, Delta is likely more interested in getting an injunction to prevent further Amazon sales, setting precedent against counterfeiters and possibly allowing them to address the numerous unearned negative product reviews.

Stay tuned for updates.

Delta Faucet Company v. Iakovlev et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00733-JRS-TAB
File Date: March 25, 2021
Plaintiff: Delta Faucet Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Dmitrii Iakovlev, 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, Deception
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Dispute over Great Western Trail publishing rights leads to trademark lawsuit

18 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Branding, Business Law, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Conspiracy, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Gaming, State Trademark Infringement

This is an interesting dispute involving board game publishing rights and exclusive trademark licensing.

The Complaint (below) references a contract by which the plaintiff, Stronghold Games, would exclusively publish a board game called “Great Western Trail” from August 3, 2016 to December 31, 2018. At that time, the game was owned by a German company called eggertspiele. The Complaint alleges that one of the obligations eggertspiele agreed to in the contract was it “will not during the term grant to any other person, firm or company any rights that would derogate from the grant made” in its contract with Stronghold Games.

Stronghold first released Great Western Trail in the U.S. in November 2016. It was very popular and quickly sold out. However, while seeking permission for a second print run of the game in June 2017, Stronghold learned that all assets of eggertspiele had been purchased by Plan B Games, the defendant.

Plan B Games asserted that it had no contract with Stronghold and it did not grant reprint rights to Stronghold. Subsequently, in January 2018, Plan B Games released its own version of Great Western Trail, seemingly identical but removing Stronghold’s logo from the packaging.

Screen Shot 2019-04-17 at 11.03.19 AM.png

I think this paragraph from the Complaint nicely sums up why Stronghold is unhappy with the current state of affairs: “Plan B was well aware of the pent-up demand for the Stronghold Version of this game in 2017, and the introduction of the nearly identical Plan B Version in early 2018 to satisfy the pent-up demand for the Stronghold Version improperly traded on Stronghold’s goodwill and has led to consumer confusion.”

Unfortunately, while the Complaint references the initial contract between Stronghold and eggertspiele granting publication rights, it didn’t include a copy of the contract for review. Although the contract apparently included language about minimum duration and exclusivity, it’s unclear whether the contract granted any property interest in the Great Western Trail trademark to Stronghold.

As general information, license agreements can give licensees standing to sue for infringement, provided that they grant an exclusive license and a property interest in the trademark. A trademark licensee’s proper use of a mark benefits the trademark owner, not the licensee. This allows trademark owners to rely on use by controlled licensees to prove continuing use of a trademark. Section 5 of the Lanham Act explicitly recognizes the acquisition of trademark rights by a licensor through first use of the mark by a controlled licensee.

However, in this situation, Stronghold appears to assert its own claim to property rights in the GREAT WESTERN TRAIL trademark distinct from the licensor, based on its own exclusive marketing efforts in the United States.

I look forward to reading the Answer, which hopefully will include the original contract. Stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE: This lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on January 30, 2020.

Indie Game Studios, LLC v. Plan B Games, Inc et al.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-1492
File Date: Monday, April 15, 2019
Plaintiff: Indie Game Studios, LLC d/b/a Stronghold Games LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Olmstead, Jr., John Bradshaw
Defendant: Plan B Games, Inc., Plan B Games Europe GMBH
Cause
: Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conspiracy
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

← Older posts

Categories

  • Artists (21)
  • Authors (19)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (27)
  • Business Law (8)
  • Copyright (289)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (537)
  • Indianapolis (45)
  • Intellectual Property (593)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (529)
  • Musicians (12)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (178)
  • Patent (43)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (55)
  • Southern District of Indiana (320)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (24)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (317)
  • 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.

  • Follow Following
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 75 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...