Category Archives: Litigation

October 2026 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

30 Friday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

October was quiet on the named-party side of the Indiana copyright and trademark dockets. One local trademark case was filed and received its own post. The remaining filings were the kinds this blog usually skips. Here’s an update on last month’s activity in Indiana copyright and trademark litigation:

Pending Lawsuits

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC, 1:24-cv-01895-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., filed Oct. 25, 2024). Closed. On December 22, 2025, the court entered a consent judgment and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff against PDGROWTH LLC and Patrick D. Garton, jointly and severally, in the principal amount of $750,000, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Company, LLC, 3:24-cv-00190-DRL (N.D. Ind., filed March 1, 2024). Still pending. As of an August 10, 2026 order, fact discovery was extended to August 28, 2026, with expert and rebuttal deadlines running into late 2026 and mediation to be completed by February 10, 2027. Discovery disputes, including production of Microsoft Teams messages, continued through the fall.

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel et al, 3:22-cv-00395-DRL (N.D. Ind., filed May 18, 2022). Still pending. On August 26, 2026, the court issued an opinion and order granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on certain copyright ownership and liability claims, denying other motions, and directing the parties to file status reports by mid-September 2026 on damages, remaining counts, and counterclaims. Activity has continued since.

Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al., 2:22-cv-00387-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., filed Sept. 7, 2022). Still pending. No public resolution appears on the docket since the September update.

Nickel and Dimes Incorporated v. Noah’s Arcade LLC et al, 3:23-cv-00699-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind., filed July 25, 2023). Still pending. The case had been stayed in March 2025 pending a related insurance coverage action. The stay was lifted in early October 2026, and filings resumed.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. et al., 1:24-cv-00293-JRS-CSW (S.D. Ind., filed Feb. 14, 2024). Still pending. No public resolution appears on the docket since the September update.

University of Indianapolis v. The Trustees of Indiana University, 1:26-cv-01669 (S.D. Ind., filed Aug. 11, 2026). Still pending. No answer or other substantive filings appear on the public docket since the complaint. The original post is here.

BioCote Limited v. BioBond Adhesives, Inc., 4:26-cv-00086 (S.D. Ind., filed Aug. 19, 2026). Still pending. No answer or other substantive filings appear on the public docket since the complaint. The original post is here.

New October Filings

Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm v. D-N-A Integrators, Inc. et al, 1:26-cv-02112 (S.D. Ind., filed Oct. 1, 2026). Still pending. The complaint concerns a 2015 asset purchase agreement transferring the Nelson Alarm name and the later registration of nelsonalarm.net. The original post is here.

Stay tuned for updates.

September 2026 Litigation Updates

Nelson Alarm sues Former Co-owner over nelsonalarm.net

14 Wednesday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In April 2015, Security Masters Corporation bought the assets of Nelson Alarm, Inc. The deal, an asset purchase agreement that Daniel E. Nelson signed personally, included the “Nelson Alarm” business and trademark name and the goodwill that went with it. Security Masters has done business as Nelson Alarm in Indianapolis since the closing. It says it has used the name continuously for the sale and installation of home and business security systems.

In July 2026, Security Masters learned that nelsonalarm.net had been registered on April 19, 2024, and was redirecting traffic to dnaintegrators.com, the site of D-N-A Integrators, Inc. Daniel E. Nelson is the founder and president of that company. The Complaint (below) says the two firms sell to the same buyers. A letter went out on July 8, 2026, demanding that the use stop and that the domain be transferred. The redirect came down. The parties were otherwise unable to find a suitable resolution. Security Masters now seeks the intervention of the Southern District.

Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm v. D-N-A Integrators, Inc. and Daniel E. Nelson

Court Case Number: 1:26-cv-02112-JPH-MKK
File Date: October 1, 2026
Plaintiff: Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate and David A.W. Wong of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendants: D-N-A Integrators, Inc. and Daniel E. Nelson
Cause: Breach of Contract; Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin; Common-law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement; Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Security Masters filed Serial No. 99900763 for NELSON ALARM on June 23, 2026, covering installation and monitoring of security and fire alarms, design and testing of the systems, and related services in Classes 37, 42, and 45. The application was awaiting examination when the complaint was filed. The suit does not need a registration certificate to plead § 1125(a) or the state claims. It does plead that the name was distinctive when the domain was registered, and that the registration was in bad faith.

The relief asked for is the usual set for this kind of file: an injunction against use of NELSON ALARM or anything confusingly similar, transfer of nelsonalarm.net, an accounting, damages, trebling where the statute allows it, statutory damages under the ACPA of up to $100,000 for the domain, destruction of materials bearing the mark, and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

Complaint:

Security Masters Corporation ComplaintDownload

Copyright Registration Before You Sue (and Why Photographers Keep Learning This the Hard Way)

08 Thursday Oct 2026

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

A photographer in Indianapolis shoots a wedding, a storefront, a plate of food. The picture shows up on someone else’s website. A friend says “send a cease-and-desist.” Another friend says “sue them.” Both friends skip the part that actually matters under the Copyright Act: for a United States work, you generally cannot file a civil infringement suit until the Copyright Office has registered the work. Not applied. Registered.

That is §411(a). The Supreme Court closed the “I filed the application last Tuesday” loophole in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com. The certificate has to issue, or the Office has to refuse the application. An online deposit and a credit-card receipt are not a registration.

Two clocks, not one

Registration gets you in the courthouse door. A timely registration is what gets you statutory damages and attorneys’ fees under §412.

Timely means the registration was made before the infringement started, or within three months after first publication. Miss that window and you can still sue for actual damages and profits – if you can prove them. Proving what one scraped JPEG was worth, and what the restaurant actually made because of it, is how a $750 problem becomes a $15,000 problem that you cannot recover.

This is the part photographers keep learning the hard way. The picture was published on a portfolio site in March. The scrape happened in November. The registration was filed in December, after the angry email. The suit is allowed once the certificate issues. The statutory-damages count is not.

What “register the work” actually means

You register the photograph, or the group of photographs, not the business name and not the camera. Unpublished photos can go in as a group. Published photos have their own group option if they were published in the same calendar year and you meet the Office’s rules. A wedding gallery is not automatically one work. A year’s Instagram feed is not automatically one work.

The deposit has to be the work you intend to sue on. A low-res web crop of a different edit is how people pick fights with the Office that they did not need.

Foreign works have a different path into court. Most of the complaints this blog sees in the Southern and Northern Districts are U.S. photographs, U.S. software, U.S. text. Those need the certificate.

The cease-and-desist is not a substitute

A letter can ask the other side to take the picture down. It can preserve a claim. It cannot manufacture a registration date you do not have. If the plan is federal court, file the application first and wait. The Office is faster than it used to be. It is not same-afternoon fast.

If the plan is only a takedown, a registration still helps. Platforms and hosts are more likely to act on a registration number than on a caption that says “© 2026.”

What this blog will keep watching

When a copyright complaint lands in Indianapolis or Hammond and the registration dates are in the complaint – they usually are – those dates tell you which remedies are even in play. A complaint that pleads statutory damages on a work registered after the scrape is making a claim the statute does not give it. That is a drafting problem, not a jury problem.

Register the pictures you care about. Do it when you publish them, or at least within three months. Then worry about the letter.

Stay tuned for the docket updates.

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

What a BMI Bar Case Is (and Why This Blog Will Usually Skip Them)

05 Monday Oct 2026

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Broadcast Music, Inc. licenses the public performance of songs in its repertoire. When a bar, restaurant, or grill plays that music without a license, BMI and the publishers sue. The complaint names the venue and, often, the owners. It lists a handful of songs performed on a given night. It asks for statutory damages, an injunction, and fees. Indiana federal courts see these cases on a regular basis. The latest is Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Dagger’z Bar and Grill LLC, 4:26-cv-00265, filed September 24, 2026, against the Jeffersonville bar and two individuals.

That is the whole pattern. There is no fight over who wrote the songs, no fair-use argument that goes anywhere, and rarely an answer. The defendant takes a license, settles, or defaults. A consent judgment or a default judgment follows. The docket is short because the legal question is short: the songs were performed in public, and there was no license.

This blog is for named local disputes with something to read – a mark, a specimen, a story that is not the same story as last year’s bar. A BMI filing is technically a copyright lawsuit, and thus we don’t want to ignore them completely. However, they will no longer get their own post. If one of the BMI lawsuits turns into a real contest over ownership or a defense that is not “we will pay,” that one might earn a write-up. Until then, BMI cases will just appear in the monthly updates.

Stay tuned for new cases with something left to say after the complaint.

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

What a Schedule A Case Is (and Why This Blog Usually Skips Them)

02 Friday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

If you scan the Northern District of Indiana copyright and trademark indexes, you will keep seeing captions like Plaintiff v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A. That is not a missing name. That is the case. The real defendants – often dozens or hundreds of Amazon, eBay, Temu, or Shopify storefronts – are listed on a sealed exhibit filed with the complaint. Counsel asks for a temporary restraining order, an asset freeze, and leave to serve by email. Many of those defendants never appear. Defaults follow. The docket looks busy but the local story is thin.

These filings started as a Northern District of Illinois habit and migrated. Hammond now sees a regular diet of them. Some are trademark counterfeiting. Some are copyright. The plaintiff is often a brand or a designer with no Indiana office. The “Indiana” connection is venue and a magistrate who will sign a TRO. That is enough for the statute. It is not enough for the kind of post this blog is for.

This site follows named parties, local businesses, university marks, and the occasional food truck that could not sort out a cease-and-desist. A sealed schedule of overseas sellers does not give you that. There is usually no public complaint worth quoting, no Indiana hook beyond the case number, and no answer coming. When a Schedule A filing names a real local defendant or turns into something other than a default mill, it will earn a post. Until then, you will see those captions in the monthly wrap, if at all, and not as a standalone post.

Stay tuned for the cases with names on both sides of the “v.”

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis