• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Litigation

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Norwood Promotional Products v. KustomKoozies

11 Wednesday Nov 2009

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Breach of Contract, Corrective Advertising Damages, Jane Magnus-Stinson, Larry J. McKinney, Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Norwood Promotional Products v. KustomKoozies, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-01378-LJM-JMS

File Date: Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Plaintiff: Norwood Promotional Products, LLC

Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Keirian A. Brown of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Defendant: KustomKoozies, LLC, Steve Liddle

Cause: Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Dilution, Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract and Corrective Advertising Damages

Court: Southern District of Indiana

Judge: Judge Larry J. McKinney

Referred To: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Peeps Maker Sues Greeting Card Company

07 Wednesday Oct 2009

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

≈ Leave a comment

Source: Tom Spalding of Indy Star

simpsonspeeps

The maker of Peeps — those marshmallow candies that are shaped into chicks, bunnies, and other animals — has filed a lawsuit in Indianapolis, accusing a card company of trademark infringement.

Just Born, a candy manufacturer based in Bethlehem, Pa., claims in a federal court filing that American Greetings Corp.’s recycled paper greetings unit used the likeness without authorization.
Advertisement

Peeps were introduced nationally in 1958, the company says on its Web site, and are an Easter addiction for many candy lovers because of the sugar-coated yellow chicks.

The company says Peeps are the No. 1-selling non-chocolate candy.

One card introduced as evidence features two live chicks staring at what looks like a peep. “She’s had waaaay too much Botox,” one of the chicks jokes.

“Happy Easter,” says a copy of another card contained in the lawsuit, “From me and my peeps.”

“Defendant has not received permission from JBI, or anyone acting on JBI’s behalf, to manufacture, produce, advertise or sell any item bearing the PEEPS trademarks or trade dress,” the suit reads.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Hamilton Superior Court but was moved to U.S. District Court.

Electronic Arts in Trademark Battle Against John Dillinger’s Estate

03 Thursday Sep 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Court Case Number: 5:09-cv-03965-HRL

File Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009

Plaintiff: Electronic Arts, Inc.

Plaintiff Counsel: R. Adam Lauridsen, R. James Slaughter of Keker & Van Nest LLP

Defendant: Dillinger, LLC

Cause: Trademark Infringement

Court: California Northern District Court

Judge: Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Video game mega-company Electronic Arts filed suit last week in the US District Court of Northern California against Indiana-based Dillinger, LLC, over the in-game use of a pair of weapons bearing the famed criminal’s moniker.  Specifically, the firearms in question are the “Dillinger Tommy Gun” found in The Godfather and the “Modern Dillinger” available in The Godfather II.

dillingerEA is seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of John Dillinger’s name does not violate Dillinger’s rights.  The complaint alleges that on July 22 (exactly 75 years after the bank robber was gunned down by the FBI in Chicago, mind you) Dillinger contacted EA threatening legal action if the publisher did not agree to pay “millions of dollars for the game elements purportedly covered by its publicity rights and trademarks.”

Dillinger’s claim stems from Indiana’s Right of Publicity statute that protects against unauthorized commercial use of a person’s personality for 100 years after his or her death. EA, on the other hand, contends that its use of Dillinger’s name in The Godfather games is protected under the First Amendment, and it does not violate any claimed rights of publicity or trademarks held by Dillinger, LLC.

With a recent Dillinger movie starring Johnny Depp, it’s no shock that Dillinger, LLC would be looking to shore up it’s IP portfolio.  Whether EA’s alleged infringement justifies a demand of “millions of dollars” is questionable.  I doubt Dillinger expected EA to settle for anything near that amount.  Maybe Dillinger’s legal team has just been looking for a good opportunity to test the limits of Indiana’s Right of Publicity law.  The same legal team represents the estates of several prominent deceased celebrities, so the outcome here could have important repercussions in other matters.

Either way, the Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Blog will keep you updated.

Source: Gamespot

Indiana Patent Litigation Update – Rosco Inc. v. Velvac Inc.

02 Wednesday Sep 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christopher A. Nuechterlein, Philip P. Simon

Court Case Number: 3:09-cv-00395-PPS-CAN

File Date: Friday, August 28, 2009

Plaintiff: Rosco Inc.

Plaintiff Counsel: David B. Bassett of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Defendant:Velvac Inc.

Cause: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

Court:Indiana Northern District Court

Judge: Judge Philip P. Simon

Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Velvac logo

A patent infringement case involving two companies that make school bus mirrors.  Let the good times roll.

Indiana and Purdue Set Aside Rivalry To Combat Common Enemy – Beer

28 Friday Aug 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Indiana and Purdue universities have joined a coalition of colleges calling for Anheuser-Busch InBev to stop selling its Bud Light “fan can,” a regular-size aluminum can of beer decked out in school colors, in college towns across the nation.  The schools’ “cease & desist” claims range from trademark infringement to a negative impact on school efforts to curb binge and underage drinking.  The cans have no college logos, names or other identifiers — just 27 color combinations.

Will the King of Beers stand up to the schools?  We’ll see.  Bud seems to be backing down in some situations and removing their cans from surrounding areas.

Can anyone near one of these schools send pictures of these cans?  Thanks!

Go over to Indy Star for the full story.

budlight

← 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...