Category Archives: Intellectual Property

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Batesville Services v. Cremation Options et al

30 Saturday Oct 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Batesville Services, Inc. v. Cremation Options, LLC et al

Plaintiff has sold cremation casket goods under the OPTIONS trademark since 1993. Defendants have been operating a competing website (www.cremationoptions.com) since 2002 that allegedly infringes on Plaintiff’s trademarks and copyrights in images of cremation goods.

Court Case Number: 4:10-cv-00129-RLY-WGH
File Date: Friday, October 15, 2010
Plaintiff: Batesville Services, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Karen K. Gaunt of Wood Herron & Evans LLP
Defendant: Cremation Options, LLC, http://www.cremationoptions.com, Dustin Rhodes, Joseph Salvatore Damiano Sr., A.J. Styles, John Does 1-3
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Copyright Infringement, Indiana Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.

Indiana Trade Secret Litigation Update – Ray’s Trash Service, Inc. v. Robert Miller et al

28 Thursday Oct 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Ray’s Trash Service, Inc. v. Robert Miller et al

The Defendant individuals were former employees of Plaintiff, Ray’s Trash Service, Indy’s largest recycling and waste disposal operation. Following their resignation, the Defendants allegedly entered into a campaign to solicit Plaintiff’s customers, in violation of non-compete and non-solicitation clauses from Plaintiff’s employment agreement.  Companies, do you have proper agreements in place with your key employees?

This case was removed from Hendricks County Superior Court.

Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-01302-TWP-DML
File Date: Monday, October 18, 2010
Plaintiff: Ray’s Trash Service, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher C. Murray, Todd J. Kaiser of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart
Defendant: Robert Miller, Vicki Murphy, C&A Express, Inc., Todd Roberts
Defendant Counsel: William O. Harrington and Bettie Harrington on behalf of Robert Miller, Amanda L. Asbury and Anthony Scott Chinn on behalf of remaining Defendants
Cause: Replevin, Conversion, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Tortious Interference with Contractual Business Relations, Computer Trespass
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Knox Fertilizer Company Inc. v. Appeal of a Decision by the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board

26 Tuesday Oct 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Knox Fertilizer Company Inc. v. Appeal of a Decision by the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board

If a trademark applicant is denied federal registration by a trademark examiner at the U.S. Trademark Office, that denial may be appealed to the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (“TTAB”). Decisions of the TTAB may, in turn, be appealed to a United States district court.  Plaintiff in this matter has appealed the TTAB’s decision to uphold denial of its PLATINUM TURF FERTILIZER mark (the mark was denied registration based on a likelihood of confusion with a registered PLATINA mark for fertilizers and plant growth regulators).

Rather than cut their losses and proceed with a rebrand to a non-confusing, less generic and probably stronger trademark, the Plaintiff/Applicant has instead decided to hire a team of litigators and see whether a federal court can do a better job at trademark examination than the Trademark Office. I’ll keep you updated.

Court Case Number: 3:10-cv-00422-JVB -CAN
File Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Plaintiff: Knox Fertilizer Company Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel Tychonievich, Edward A. Sullivan III, Larry E. LaTarte Jr. of Baker & Daniels
Defendant: Appeal of a Decision by the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board
Cause: No Likelihood of Confusion
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Indiana Trade Dress Litigation Update – Top Ten Imports, LLC v. BMX Imports, LP

25 Monday Oct 2010

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Top Ten Imports, LLC v. BMX Imports, LP

Here’s an interesting case in which the Plaintiff seeks to protect the unique design of  a space heater. Plaintiff manufactures the iHeater. Defendant has been manufacturing and marketing space heaters with a similar(?) design, the HeaterPRO (see images below). The ultimate question is whether a space heater design can even be protected. After all, are there many things more utilitarian than a space heater? Plaintiff tries to cover all bases just in case, relying on copyright, trade dress and even a design patent.

Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-01287-SEB-DML
File Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Plaintiff: Top Ten Imports, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: James M. Hinshaw and Alex E. Gude of Bingham McHale LLP
Defendant: BMX Imports, LP
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

The Rise Of Publicity Rights Litigation

22 Friday Oct 2010

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

There’s a nice summary of publicity rights lawsuits over at TechDirt and I also highly recommend the underlying article which discusses the history of publicity rights from assorted viewpoints (including an appearance by Indianapolis attorney Jonathan Faber).

Indiana has some of the most expansive publicity rights laws in the nation.  Indiana grants rights to an individual and his agent for 100 years after death, and the protections cover use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, distinctive appearance, gesture and mannerisms.

“There are a lot of reasons publicity rights battles seem to be growing: more laws, plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions, no consistent bright-line rules about what plaintiffs have to show, and a newfound sensitivity prompted by the digital age.”