Category Archives: Litigation

Super 8 sues Past Franchisee for Violation of Franchise Agreement

09 Tuesday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Well, at least it’s not another photography copyright case…

But it’s not really much of a trademark case either. The defendants are alleged to have continued using Plaintiff’s trademarks after the expiration of a previous Franchise Agreement.

What does make this case interesting is that it has a long history. The prior owner of the same Auburn, Indiana facility was involved in a similar 2016 lawsuit with Super 8.

How about this assertion in the Complaint? Do you agree? Indisputably?

16. The Super 8® Marks are indisputably among the most famous in the United States.

I can think of many brands (at least 100) more famous than Super 8 motels. But, you go, Super 8.

Super 8 found a resolution last time (new franchisee?) so maybe they’ll do the same this time. Stay tuned for updates.

Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. v. Harvee Properties et al

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-00145
File Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019
Plaintiff: Super 8 Worldwide, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew M. Pendexter, James M. Hinshaw of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
Defendant: Harvee Properties, LLC, Paresh Patel
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint: 

Photos, Bongs and Blueprints dominate the March Indiana IP Docket

01 Monday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The Indiana intellectual property docket continues to be dominated by photography and counterfeit bong cases. In March 2019, RooR International continued their crusade against Indiana smoke and vape shops. Many of the smoke shop defendants have seen the advantage of “strength in numbers” and retained the same defense attorney to assist with a common defense.

Sadly, another 10 defendants, including Eli Lilly, the National Association of Realtors, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (!), were caught up in Richard Bell’s skyline photo litigation web. I’ll be curious to see whether these organization’s high-priced lawyers can figure out a different resolution than previous Bell defendants.

Design Basics, a regular copyright plaintiff, returns to protect a set of its architectural drawings.

Let’s all keep our fingers crossed for an interesting trademark case to be filed in April.  I’ll be the first to let you know.

Photography

  • Richard Bell  – 10
  • Oppenheimer
  • Iwasaki

Counterfeit Bongs

  • RooR International BV – 7

Architectural Drawings

  • Design Basics LLC

Screen Shot 2019-04-01 at 6.17.51 AM.png

Copyright lawsuit filed over Chicago skyscraper photograph

20 Wednesday Mar 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Here’s yet another photography copyright lawsuit, this one involving the unauthorized reproduction and public display of a photograph of skyscrapers in Chicago.

The defendant, a corporation based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, allegedly used a  registered skyscraper photograph of plaintiff, an Oregon-based photographer, on their website without authorization.

Other than the RooR counterfeit bong cases, photography cases are the only ones being filed lately. Although I don’t expect anything unusual in this case, and predict a quick settlement, I’ll continue to monitor the lawsuit to see how it might differ from the multitudinous Bell cases.

Iwasaki v. Apollo Design Technology, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-00094
File Date: Monday, March 18, 2019
Plaintiff: Rich Iwasaki
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard Liebowitz of Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC
Defendant: Apollo Design Technology, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Integrity of Copyright Management Information
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD
Referred To: TBD

Complaint:

Bell and Bongs continue to dominate Indiana Intellectual Property Filings

18 Monday Mar 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Skyline photographs and unauthorized bongs continue to be the primary driver of intellectual property litigation in Indiana in early March. Richard Bell’s internet-scouring spiders have apparently found another batch of entities that used his Indianapolis skyline photograph, including a big name, Eli Lilly and Company.

RooR has continued to crack down on Indiana smoke and vape shops for the alleged sale of counterfeit products. Surely news of these lawsuits has made the rounds of smoke shops owners by now, who will definitely want to be closely checking their inventory of RooR water pipes for authenticity, rather than wind up as next week’s defendant.

Regular filer Design Basics has also returned to protect a set of its architectural drawings.

Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 5.12.05 AM.png

Supreme Court confirms that works must be registered before commencing copyright lawsuit

05 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Litigation, Supreme Court

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 8.07.53 AM.png

The much-anticipated ruling for Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, et al. has arrived. Yesterday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, confirming that a work must be registered prior to commencing a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Held: Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. Upon registration of the copyright, however, a copyright owner can recover for infringement that occurred both before and after registration.

This ruling confirms the literal reading of 17 U.S.C. §411(a), which states that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until … registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.”

Fourth Estate, a news organization, had argued that, because “registration is not a condition of copyright protection” under 17 U.S.C. §408(a), then §411(a) should not bar a copyright claimant from enforcing that protection in court once they have applied for registration.

Now it is clear that registration must be obtained before commencing a lawsuit. This means that copyright owners must be even more diligent about filing applications for their significant works. The time spent waiting on an application to register would normally remove any option of quick, decisive action by a copyright owner against an infringer.

The best option for late applicants will be the Copyright Office’s Special Handling procedure, which allows for registration in less than a week for an additional $800 Special Handling fee.

Justice Ginsburg’s opinion acknowledged the current administrative delay of the Copyright Office, acknowledging that Congress is in the best position to protect copyright claimants, either by increasing funding to the Copyright Office or revising the language of §411(a).

True, registration processing times have increased from one to two weeks in 1956 to many months today. Delays, in large part, are the result of Copyright Office staffing and budgetary shortages that Congress can alleviate, but courts cannot cure. Unfortunate as the current administrative lag may be, that factor does not allow this court to revise §411(a)’s congressionally composed text.

This blog will begin to monitor the real-world impact of this decision and report back periodically.