• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Litigation

Indiana Inventor Sues Over Food-Heating Invention

26 Wednesday Aug 2009

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

≈ Leave a comment

An Indiana inventor says his invention to speed the microwave oven heating of frozen foods was stolen from him by Birds Eye Foods and Clorox Co.

birdseyelogoIn a suit filed in Scott County Superior Court, Gary Hopkins is seeking unspecified damages from the companies, which he claims ignored confidentiality agreements on his patented system using plastic containers with pinholes and steam vents to cut in half the time needed to microwave frozen food.

Clorox Logo

Hopkins claims Birds Eye and Clorox, parent company of GladWare food containers, introduced identical products after seeing his work and refusing to pay him.

I haven’t seen the complaint yet (anyone down in Scott County want to send me a copy?) but the lawsuit apparently has claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of trade secrets.  No mention of patent infringement, although Hopkins has several related patents:

Hopkins patents

The Indiana Intellectual Property blog will keep you updated.  Follow the link below for the full story, including an interview with Mr. Hopkins.

Source: Indy Star

Oregon Court Grants Indiana Corporation's Motion To Stay In Non-Compete Matter

12 Wednesday Aug 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trade Secret

≈ Leave a comment

Source: Robert Milligan and summer associate Alana Friedman of Seyfarth Shaw LLP

guidantlogo

A federal district court in Oregon recently granted a motion to stay in a dual-state non-compete matter based on the first-to-file rule, even though the two cases were filed only a few hours apart. The first-to-file rule provides that, when similar cases have been filed in different federal district courts, it is within the court’s discretion to dismiss the second filed action when it involves the same parties and issues.

In Biotronik, Inc. v. Guidance Sales Corp., 2009 WL 1838322 (D. Or. Jun. 22, 2009), Judge King of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted Guidant Sales Corporation’s (“GSC”) motion to stay against GSC’s competitor, Biotronik, Inc (“Biotronik”).  The court granted the motion to stay based on the first-to-file rule.  Id. at *3.

Biotronik and GSC are competitors in the distribution of cardiac rhythm management devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators. Biotronik is an Oregon corporation and GSC is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota.

logo_biotronik

On April 10, 2009, twelve GSC employees ended their employment at GSC and began working at Biotronik. The employees signed agreements with GSC containing non-compete, non-solicit, and non-disclosure provisions. The agreements contained Minnesota forum and choice of law provisions.

On April 14, 2009, at approximately 12:26 p.m PDT, GSC filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking damages from Biotronik and the twelve defecting employees for allegedly breaching their employment agreements. GSC also alleged several employees breached their duty of loyalty as well as their non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreements. GSC further alleged that Biotronik tortiously interfered with GSC’s contract with its employees and aided and abetted the employees’ breach of their duty of loyalty to GSC. Finally, GSC sought a declaration that its non-compete agreement with each of the twelve employees was valid and enforceable and that Minnesota law applies.

Later that same day, Biotronik filed suit in Oregon state court at approximately 5:11 p.m. PDT (Biotronik apparently e-mailed the complaint to GSC at 3:42 p.m. PDT in advance of the filing). Biotronik sought a declaration that the twelve employees, and one additional former GSC employee also working for Biotronik, were in compliance with all of the “enforceable” restrictive covenants contained in the agreements they signed while employed by GSC. The former employees were not named parties to the action. The case was later removed to the federal district court in Oregon and assigned to Judge King.

On April 29, 2009, the Minnesota federal court entered a stipulated temporary restraining order and order for expedited discovery. The TRO required Biotronik to return confidential information and prohibited Biotronik from inducing the employees to solicit other GSC employees to leave. The employees were also prohibited from disclosing or retaining confidential information and soliciting current GSC employees to leave.

GSC then moved to have the federal case in Oregon dismissed or stayed under the first-to-file rule. The court found that the first-to-file rule was applicable because Biotronik and GSC are parties to both actions and the issues are substantially similar since both cases seek to determine the enforceability of the non-competition agreement. Id. at *2 (relying on Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F. 2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Although the court noted that rigid application of the first-to-file rule was not required, especially where the cases were filed only hours apart, it nevertheless chose to enforce the rule. The court provided two reasons as to why it was appropriate to grant the stay and allow the Minnesota case to proceed. Id. at *3. First, the Minnesota case would more thoroughly resolve the dispute because it involved more issues than the Oregon case. The court reasoned that Biotronik would still have to defend some of the charges in the Minnesota action even if the Oregon case proceeded. Second, the Minnesota action had progressed more quickly than the Oregon action since the parties in the Minnesota action had already agreed to a temporary restraining order and discovery had already begun. Id. The court also noted that Biotronik had not relied on any of the exceptions of the first-to-file rule, such as bad faith, anticipatory suit, and forum shopping. Id.(citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991)) (emphasis added).

The court summed up its decision by stating that, “[i]n short, application of the first-to-file rule will promote the interest of judicial economy and avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments.” Id.

The case serves an important reminder that, depending upon the circumstances, filing suit first can make a difference when it comes to enforcing non-competition and non-solicitation covenants against former employees and their new employers, and vice versa. However, where there is demonstrated evidence of forum shopping, the court may decline to apply the “first-filed” rule.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Franklin College v. Franklin University SETTLEMENT

21 Tuesday Jul 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

FranklinCThat didn’t take long.  The Indy Star reports that the Franklin College vs. Franklin University trademark litigation, filed just weeks ago, is already headed for settlement after Ohio-based Franklin University agreed to modify the manner in which it identifies itself in any advertising material sent out to prospective students.

Lawyers for both institutions filed a joint Agreed Judgment today to be approved by the judge.  According to the Agreed Judgment (full images below), Franklin University will have to add the words “of Ohio” or “Columbus, Ohio” to its promotional literature and broadcast advertisements starting Aug. 3.

Additionally, Franklin U. won’t use any variation of the combination of the words “Indianapolis,” “Indiana” or “campus.”

Neither party has admitted liability or fault in connection with the subject matter of the case.

FranklinAgreedJudgment

FranklinAgreedJudgment2

FranklinAgreedJudgment3So that’s it.  Unless there’s another twist, this should be the end of this trademark litigation.  The terms of settlement come so quickly after filing that it makes one wonder whether this could have been settled without filing a lawsuit.  But perhaps putting this matter in the public eye is what drove one or both of the parties to settle.  Nice work all around.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Franklin College v. Franklin University

07 Tuesday Jul 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trademark

≈ 1 Comment

NEW Indiana trademark litigation alert:

Franklin College has filed a federal complaint against Franklin University, an Ohio-based institution, for trademark infringement and unfair competitive practices.  Franklin College, located 25 miles south of Indianapolis, is a liberal arts institution with about 1,000 undergraduate students.  It celebrates its 175th anniversary this year.  Franklin University, based in Columbus, Ohio, is opening a new location in the Castleton area.

FranklinComplaint

Franklin College President Jay Moseley says the decision to take action was made after Franklin University began an aggressive advertising campaign in central Indiana to promote classes being offered this fall.  He says the complaint is an effort to protect Franklin College trademarks while shielding alumni and students from confusion.

“Since Franklin University began its advertising blitz in Central Indiana this spring, we have received calls, comments and e-mail messages from many people asking why we changed our name or whether we’ve opened a satellite office for online education in Indianapolis,” Moseley said in a statement.

“We have great concerns about the impact of the obvious confusion, especially with prospective students and employers of our alumni.”

Of particular concern to Franklin College is its trademark clock tower logo.  “Their ads include colors and a ‘clock tower’ design amazingly similar to our logo,” Moseley said.

FranklinCFranklinU

Moseley also noted that the Ohio school has recently begun referring to itself as “Franklin University – Indianapolis” or simply “Franklin” in local and Internet advertising.

Franklin University has responded with the following statement:

Franklin University is and has been publicizing its presence in Indianapolis using its own name in a completely factual and consistent manner, and in close cooperation with the State of Indiana and the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. It is unfortunate that Franklin College did not contact us if it had concerns about our marketing, since we did advise the President of Franklin College of our intentions prior to beginning to offer programs in Indianapolis in 2009.

Franklin University offers academic programs that are distinct from and targeted to a very different student demographic than Franklin College. Programs are intended for the working individual, not the traditional-age on-campus college student. The University focuses on business and professional education, such as majors in accounting and business administration, not on a traditional liberal arts education.

Founded in 1902, Franklin University has been serving adult students for more than 100 years. It is the leading and most experienced educator of adult students and is nationally recognized for its student-centered approach. Franklin University, a non-profit institution of higher education provides flexible, online as well as face-to-face class scheduling, maximizes transfer of previously earned college credits, and offers tuition rates far below the national average. Franklin University has been serving adult students in Indiana through its online offerings and Community College Alliance program for nearly a decade.

Now that Franklin College has chosen to use the legal system to resolve this matter, rather than contacting Franklin University, Franklin University will certainly act to protect the right to use its own name to publicize its programs in a factual and consistent manner.

For more information about Franklin University, please visit http://www.franklin.edu.

Love the response.  Never miss an opportunity to get the word out about your course offerings and target student body.

Each parties’ respective word mark abstract:

FranklinCollege

Picture 3

Of course, the Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Law Blog will keep you updated as this matter proceeds.  No prediction on the outcome here, since I happen to know some of the attorneys involved.  But it should be interesting…

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-00830-WTL-TAB
File Date: Monday, July 6, 2009
Plaintiff: Franklin College of Indiana
Plaintiff Counsel: Wayne C. Turner, Michael R. Limrick of Bingham McHale LLP
Defendant: Franklin University, Inc.
Cause: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

The complaint includes the following causes of action: (1) Federal Trademark Infringement; (2) False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition; (3) Indiana State Trademark Infringement; (4) Indiana State Trademark Dilution; and (5) Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition.

Leave a comment with your email if you’d like a copy of the full Complaint.

Indiana RV Manufacturers Settle Trademark Infringement Case

02 Thursday Jul 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

heartland-bighorn

Indiana RV manufacturers Jayco Inc. (“Jayco”) and Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC (“Heartland”) have jointly announced a settlement of the trademark infringement lawsuit filed earlier in the year by Jayco against Heartland.   The case had been brought in the Northern District of Indiana, Case No. 3:2009-cv-00171.

The suit alleged that Heartland has violated federal trademark law by adopting the Eagle Ridge name for a line of vehicles.  Jayco claims to have held trademark rights in the EAGLE trademark since at least 1991.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this seemed like a prime settlement opportunity.  Heartland just didn’t have enough investment in the Eagle Ridge mark to justify going forward with potentially expensive trademark litigation.  In a crowded trademark marketplace, you’re bound to have friction from time to time.  It’s nice to see this matter resolve itself before the fireworks began.

Coley Brady, Heartland’s director of sales and marketing, said of the settlement, “Even though Heartland believes its Eagle Ridge line does not infringe upon Jayco’s Eagle trademark, we did not have a significant investment in Eagle Ridge as a name for our fifth-wheel travel trailers. We understand Jayco’s concern and out of respect for Jayco will no longer offer any products bearing the Eagle Ridge name.”

Sid Johnson, director of marketing for Jayco, said, “Jayco has used the Eagle name for nearly 20 years on some of our most popular RV product lines. We are grateful that Heartland is willing to change the name of its new product line to address our concerns in protecting our valuable EAGLE trademark.”

If only every trademark dispute could end so peacefully…

Source: RVBusiness

← 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...