• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Litigation

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

08 Thursday Oct 2026

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright, Fourth Estate, Indiana, Photography, registration, statutory damages

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 Unpublished photos can go in as a group.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 Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

BMI, Copyright Infringement, Litigation Update

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 Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright, Trademark, Counterfeiting, Northern District of Indiana, Schedule A

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

What a Cease-and-Desist Letter Actually Does (and Does Not Do) in Indiana

17 Thursday Sep 2026

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

cease and desist, Copyright, Indiana, Trademark, USPTO

Most Indiana trademark and copyright fights that end up in the Northern or Southern District started with a letter, not a complaint. That letter is usually called a cease-and-desist. It is also one of the most misunderstood pieces of paper in this practice.

A cease-and-desist letter is a demand. It is not a lawsuit, not an injunction, and not a finding that anyone has infringed anything. The recipient does not have to agree with it. The sender does not have to file a case if the letter is ignored. Both of those facts surprise people.

What the letter actually is

In the trademark and copyright matters this blog follows, a C&D is typically a lawyer’s letter that:

  • identifies the mark or work the sender claims;
  • describes the use the sender objects to;
  • asks the recipient to stop that use by a date; and
  • often asks for written confirmation, an accounting, or destruction of inventory.

Sometimes it attaches a registration certificate. Sometimes it attaches screenshots. Sometimes it is two pages. Sometimes it is twenty. Length is not a substitute for a real claim.

Common-law rights can support a letter just as a federal registration can. An Indiana state trademark registration can support one too. None of those pieces of paper turns the letter into an order.

What it can do

Start a conversation that does not require a filing fee. A lot of disputes end here. The recipient rebrands, takes a listing down, or negotiates a short coexistence deal. No docket number is ever assigned. That is a feature, not a failure.

Put the other side on notice. In copyright cases, notice can matter for willfulness and for statutory damages once a registration is in hand. In trademark cases, notice can matter if the dispute later becomes a willfulness or damages fight. The letter is evidence that someone was told, on a date certain, that a senior user objected.

Create a paper trail. If the matter does go to the Northern or Southern District, the complaint will often recite that counsel sent a letter and “was unable to find a suitable resolution.” That sentence is familiar on this blog because it is familiar in the complaints.

Sometimes freeze a use without a TRO. A marketplace seller, a printer, or a small retailer will often pull a listing when they get a letter they take seriously. Amazon, Shopify, and a local sign shop are not going to litigate your brand for you.

Sometimes stop a USPTO application from sailing through. A well-timed letter can lead to an abandonment, an amendment, or a consent agreement before an opposition is even filed. It can also do the opposite and provoke a declaratory-judgment suit. That is a reason to think before you send.

What it does not do

It does not decide who is right. The USPTO may have already allowed a junior mark. A Secretary of State filing may already be sitting in Indianapolis. Neither office has held a trial. A letter from counsel is not a substitute for one.

It does not give you an injunction. Only a court can order someone to stop. Until then, the recipient can keep using the name, keep selling the print, and keep the website up. Many do.

It does not toll a statute or lock in venue. Sending a letter to a Fort Wayne address does not guarantee the case stays in the Northern District. Silence after a letter does not stop a limitations clock by itself.

It does not require the other side to answer. No rule of civil procedure forces a response to a private letter. Some recipients answer through counsel. Some ignore it. Some send their own letter back. All three happen in Indiana.

It does not replace a copyright registration if you want statutory damages and fees. If the plan is a copyright suit, the registration timing rules still apply. A blistering C&D sent the week after the photo went up does not fix a missing registration.

It is not confidential just because you marked it “CONFIDENTIAL” or “FOR SETTLEMENT ONLY.” Labeling helps in some later arguments. It is not a seal. Assume the letter can show up as an exhibit.

Indiana wrinkles worth knowing

Indiana businesses often hold three different kinds of rights at once: common-law use in a county or two, an Indiana state registration, and a federal application or registration. A letter that treats those as the same thing is sloppy. A state registration is not a nationwide right. A federal registration is not a finding that every local user must fold.

The two Indiana districts see a steady run of cases that recite a C&D and then a filing a few weeks or a few months later – food trucks, chiropractors, lawn-care parts, campus events. The letter was the last attempt at a private fix, not the first exhibit in a war plan. When the letter goes out over a holiday week to an institution that is closed, you can expect the reply to be late and the temperature to rise. That is not a legal doctrine. It is a calendar.

There are also files where the better move is not to send a letter: a pending intent-to-use application you do not want to poke, a counterfeiter you do not want to tip before a seizure motion, or a recipient you expect will race to another courthouse for a declaratory-judgment action. “We sent a C&D” is not a required element of a Lanham Act or Copyright Act complaint.

How to read one if it lands on your desk

Read the whole thing, including the exhibits. Check whether the claimed registration actually covers the goods or services in the letter. Check whether the dates work. Do not take the registration symbol in the letterhead as proof of anything by itself. Then decide, with counsel if the risk is real, whether the use is worth keeping.

A short, accurate reply is often better than a long manifesto. A long manifesto is often better than a social-media thread. Neither is required.

How to write one if you are the sender

Be specific about the mark or the work. Be specific about the use. Do not claim a registration you do not have. Do not use the ® symbol on an unregistered mark – this blog has already covered that mistake. Give a date that a human can meet. Say what you want: stop, rebrand, account, assign a domain, sign a consent. “Demand that you cease and desist all infringement” is not a punch list.

If you are not prepared to file in the Northern or Southern District when the date passes, think hard about sending the letter at all. Recipients can tell the difference between a letter that will be followed and a letter that will not.


Stay tuned for the usual Indiana IP litigation docket notes. This one was just about the letter that so often comes first.

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

BIOCOTE vs. BIOCOAT…are you confused?

11 Friday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abizer Zanzi, Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Gretchen S. Lund, Litigation Update, Trademark Infringement

BioCote Limited sues BioBond Adhesives for trademark infringement in N.D. Ind. (4:26-cv-00086)

BioCote Limited sued Lafayette adhesives maker BioBond Adhesives, Inc. on August 19, 2026, in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, Case No. 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, Indiana trademark and unfair competition claims, and breach of a brand license over BioBond’s BIOCOAT antimicrobial coatings.

The Complaint (below) is a licensee fight, not a stranger-on-the-internet fight. UK company BioCote owns U.S. Registration No. 5,306,757 for the BIOCOTE logo in Class 2 for antimicrobial powder-coating compositions (issued October 10, 2017; first U.S. sales under the mark pleaded as at least 2013). It licenses the chemistry and the mark to partners who put BIOCOTE on finished goods. BioBond, which makes plant-based adhesives and protective coatings in Lafayette, is pleaded as one of those partners. Under the Brand Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, BioBond took a non-exclusive license to the BIOCOTE mark, agreed the IP stayed with BioCote, and promised it “must not use in its business any other trademark similar to the [BioCote] Mark,” must not apply to register “Biocote [or] any similar word,” and must not do anything that would diminish the registration.

BioBond then launched BioCoat SUP250 and BioCoat SWaE250 – water-based polyurethane and epoxy coatings marketed for food-processing surfaces and “defense against mold, fungi, and other microorganisms” – and, the Complaint says, filed a standard-character U.S. application for BIOCOAT covering anti-mold, anti-fungal, and anti-microbial protective coatings. BioCote says it learned of the filing from a watch notice, understood after discussions that BioBond would drop the mark and the application, then found the application still moving. It opposed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91303474) and now wants the Northern District to stop the use.

The pleaded theory is short: BIOCOTE and BIOCOAT share five of seven letters and, BioCote says, sound the same; the goods are antimicrobial coatings sold into overlapping industrial channels; and the customer was already a licensed BIOCOTE partner, which the Complaint says makes source confusion worse, not better. BioCote seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against BIOCOAT, destruction of marked packaging, refusal or cancellation of the application, damages (including a treble/enhanced-damages request on alleged willfulness), and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

BioCote Limited vs. BioBond Adhesives, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ
File Date: August 19, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: BioCote Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie L. Teaford, H. Jonathan Redway, Nicole M. Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin; Indiana Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Breach of Contract
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Gretchen S. Lund
Referred To: Abizer Zanzi

Complaint:

BioCote Limited ComplaintDownload

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.

← Older posts

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (332)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (34)
  • Indiana (607)
  • Indianapolis (52)
  • Intellectual Property (670)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (601)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (217)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (370)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (369)
  • 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.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    Join 81 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...