Category Archives: Intellectual Property

Indianapolis company accused of selling counterfeit LED lighting fixtures

15 Monday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

An Indianapolis company has been accused of selling counterfeit LED lighting fixtures.

Electra Display, on Indy’s southeast side, has been sued for copyright infringement based upon the alleged copying of the plaintiff’s intellectual property, including copyrighted images from plaintiff’s sales brochures, and false advertising, based on Electra’s use of the images to deceive customers into believing that it sold plaintiff’s products, when Electra is alleged to actually sell an inferior, knock off product made by a Chinese manufacturer.

Screen Shot 2019-04-15 at 5.47.58 AM.png

The plaintiff, Massachusetts-based JLC-Tech LLC, owns several patents for its LED lighting technology, but doesn’t assert any patent infringement claims in the Complaint (below). Rather, this lawsuit simply seeks damages and injunctive relief against the use of the sales photographs and misleading advertising. 

Stay tuned for updates.

JLC-Tech LLC v. Electra Display

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-01468-TWP-DLP
File Date: Thursday, April 11, 2019
Plaintiff: JLC-Tech LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Darren A. Craig of Frost Brown Todd LLC
Defendant: Edge Systems Group LLC d/b/a Electra Display
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Advertising
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Doris L. Pryor

Complaint:

Super 8 sues Past Franchisee for Violation of Franchise Agreement

09 Tuesday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Well, at least it’s not another photography copyright case…

But it’s not really much of a trademark case either. The defendants are alleged to have continued using Plaintiff’s trademarks after the expiration of a previous Franchise Agreement.

What does make this case interesting is that it has a long history. The prior owner of the same Auburn, Indiana facility was involved in a similar 2016 lawsuit with Super 8.

How about this assertion in the Complaint? Do you agree? Indisputably?

16. The Super 8® Marks are indisputably among the most famous in the United States.

I can think of many brands (at least 100) more famous than Super 8 motels. But, you go, Super 8.

Super 8 found a resolution last time (new franchisee?) so maybe they’ll do the same this time. Stay tuned for updates.

Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. v. Harvee Properties et al

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-00145
File Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019
Plaintiff: Super 8 Worldwide, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew M. Pendexter, James M. Hinshaw of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
Defendant: Harvee Properties, LLC, Paresh Patel
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint: 

Photos, Bongs and Blueprints dominate the March Indiana IP Docket

01 Monday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The Indiana intellectual property docket continues to be dominated by photography and counterfeit bong cases. In March 2019, RooR International continued their crusade against Indiana smoke and vape shops. Many of the smoke shop defendants have seen the advantage of “strength in numbers” and retained the same defense attorney to assist with a common defense.

Sadly, another 10 defendants, including Eli Lilly, the National Association of Realtors, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (!), were caught up in Richard Bell’s skyline photo litigation web. I’ll be curious to see whether these organization’s high-priced lawyers can figure out a different resolution than previous Bell defendants.

Design Basics, a regular copyright plaintiff, returns to protect a set of its architectural drawings.

Let’s all keep our fingers crossed for an interesting trademark case to be filed in April.  I’ll be the first to let you know.

Photography

  • Richard Bell  – 10
  • Oppenheimer
  • Iwasaki

Counterfeit Bongs

  • RooR International BV – 7

Architectural Drawings

  • Design Basics LLC

Screen Shot 2019-04-01 at 6.17.51 AM.png

Copyright lawsuit filed over Chicago skyscraper photograph

20 Wednesday Mar 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Here’s yet another photography copyright lawsuit, this one involving the unauthorized reproduction and public display of a photograph of skyscrapers in Chicago.

The defendant, a corporation based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, allegedly used a  registered skyscraper photograph of plaintiff, an Oregon-based photographer, on their website without authorization.

Other than the RooR counterfeit bong cases, photography cases are the only ones being filed lately. Although I don’t expect anything unusual in this case, and predict a quick settlement, I’ll continue to monitor the lawsuit to see how it might differ from the multitudinous Bell cases.

Iwasaki v. Apollo Design Technology, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-00094
File Date: Monday, March 18, 2019
Plaintiff: Rich Iwasaki
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard Liebowitz of Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC
Defendant: Apollo Design Technology, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Integrity of Copyright Management Information
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD
Referred To: TBD

Complaint:

Bell and Bongs continue to dominate Indiana Intellectual Property Filings

18 Monday Mar 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Skyline photographs and unauthorized bongs continue to be the primary driver of intellectual property litigation in Indiana in early March. Richard Bell’s internet-scouring spiders have apparently found another batch of entities that used his Indianapolis skyline photograph, including a big name, Eli Lilly and Company.

RooR has continued to crack down on Indiana smoke and vape shops for the alleged sale of counterfeit products. Surely news of these lawsuits has made the rounds of smoke shops owners by now, who will definitely want to be closely checking their inventory of RooR water pipes for authenticity, rather than wind up as next week’s defendant.

Regular filer Design Basics has also returned to protect a set of its architectural drawings.

Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 5.12.05 AM.png