• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Litigation

Indiana, LOVE artist, in Trademark Litigation

12 Monday Apr 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Pop artist Robert Indiana, best known for his LOVE statue (which was created in 1964 for a Christmas card for New York’s Museum of Modern Art) is being sued by a former business partner, John Gilbert.

Gilbert claims Indiana signed an agreement three years ago which allowed him to license sculptures and other pieces bearing the word “prem” (Sanskrit for “love”) in Indiana’s iconic style.

The deal apparently fell apart at some stage, leading to the cancellation of auctions at both Sotheby’s and Christie’s, and according to Gilbert’s breach of contract suit, kept him from “meeting [his] obligations under current contracts and jeopardized prospective contractual agreements with numerous third parties.”

Indiana, now 81 years old, has filed a counter-suit for alleged violations of trademark law, stating that he never signed an agreement.

For the full story, see The Gothamist.

New Indiana Online Child Support Calculator

02 Friday Apr 2010

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Family Law, Indiana, Litigation, Supreme Court

≈ Leave a comment

The Indiana Supreme Court has developed a new online child support calculator for use by attorneys, judges and other practitioners and a second one for use by parents. According to the Web site, the calculators were created as a tool to determine child support obligation. The one for parents also suggests it should not be used as a substitute for advice from a lawyer. They can be found at www.in.gov/judiciary/childsupport/. A downloadable calculator is currently in development.

Indiana Man Handed 15-Month Sentence for Copyright Infringement

30 Tuesday Mar 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

David A. Sanners, 36, of Evansville, Indiana, was sentenced to 15 months in a work release center by U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young following his guilty plea to infringement of a copyright for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain.

This case was the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sanners admitted that between May 1, 2007 and Oct. 12, 2007, he reproduced, by electronic means, and then distributed 1,202 copies of copyrighted motion pictures in DVD format. Sanners offered the DVDs for sale to customers using catalogs.

Judge Young also ordered Sanners to make restitution in the amount of $23,979 while serving a term of three years of supervised release.

Most copyright litigation is civil in nature, meaning a court finds that a defendant has infringed and orders the defendant to pay either statutory damages or actual damages and profits. However, this case emphasizes that there are also criminal copyright penalties, and Congress has shown recent interest in increasing these penalties. It should be noted that there was certainly more to this case than just copyright infringement. The DVDs were discovered along with drugs at an Evansville home daycare which only months earlier had been the site of a pornography sting. The prosecutors certainly had these folks on their radar.

Source: Evansville Courier

For those interested, here’s the relevant provision of the Copyright Law:

§ 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Situs Inc. v. Situs Realty

21 Thursday Jan 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Indianapolis — Texas-based Situs Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit in Indianapolis claiming Situs Realty in Greenwood is infringing on the name the two real estate companies share. Talks have failed to find a settlement to their joint claims to the name.

The Houston-based company claims to have used the Situs name for 25 years.

However, Keith Stark, president of the Greenwood company, said he applied for and received a federal trademark on the Situs name in 2007 and that the Texas company failed to object at that time.

Situs trademark abstract:


More to come.

Source: Indy Star

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Vision Center Northwest, Inc. v. Vision Value

12 Thursday Nov 2009

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

≈ Leave a comment

Vision Center Northwest, Inc. v. Vision Valuewhite
No: 3:07-CV-183 RM (November 3, 2009)
U.S. District Court, N.D. of Indiana
Before: Miller

TRADEMARK; ABANDONMENT (Where a trademark owner’s only use of a mark for ten years was in a white pages listing, that mark is deemed abandoned.)

Opinion (Miller): Plaintiff operated a vision business under the name Value Visions by Dr. Tavel, until 1996, when plaintiff changed its name to Dr. Tavel. Defendant changed its name to Vision Value in 2007, and Plaintiff promptly sued for trademark infringement. The parties both moved for summary judgment. Defendant contended that Plaintiff abandoned the Value Visions mark as a result of more than ten years of nonuse. Plaintiff contended that it used the mark in the white pages during the entire ten year period. The court held that Plaintiff’s white pages listing was not bona fide use, and that Plaintiff brought forth no other evidence to show use or intent to use. Accordingly, the court held that Plaintiff had abandoned the mark and granted summary judgment for Defendant.

Source: Willamette Law Online [Summarized by Anthony Halderman]

For full opinion:
2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 103680
2009 WL 3669647

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (329)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (605)
  • Indianapolis (52)
  • Intellectual Property (666)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (598)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (216)
  • 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 (367)
  • 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...