Category Archives: Litigation

Eli Lilly sues to prevent online sale of unauthorized foreign pet medications

07 Thursday Jul 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The defendant in this trademark lawsuit, an online pet supply store, is alleged to be selling unauthorized foreign pet medication in the United States. According to the Complaint (below), foreign medications, primarily from South Africa, are being sold in violation of FDA mandates.

The specific brands at issue are ELANCO, COMFORTIS, TRIFEXIS, INTERCEPTOR and CAPSTAR pet medicines.

The Honorable Jane Magnus Stinson entered a default judgment and injunction against the prior owners of the same website on June 13, 2014, in Case No. 1:13-cv-01800-JMS-DML. New owners subsequently resumed and expanded sales, hence this follow-up lawsuit.

Screen Shot 2016-07-07 at 12.08.23 PM

Eli Lilly Company et al. v. Best Value Pet Supplies

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01787-RLY-DML
File Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Plaintiff: Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis Tiergesundheit AG
Plaintiff Counsel: Jan M. Carroll, Anne N. DePrez of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Scott Martin d/b/a Best Value Pet Supplies, Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Horror film The Lazarus Effect accused of infringing Pro Se Plaintiff’s script

13 Monday Jun 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Defendants, creators of a horror movie titled The Lazarus Effect (starring Olivia Wilde and Mark Duplass), are accused of infringing the pro se Plaintiff’s literary work, Lazari Taxa. The Complaint doesn’t specify which copyrightable elements from Plaintiff’s manuscript were allegedly copied by the horror film.

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 7.03.26 AM

Fillmore v. Blum et al.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01423-SEB-MPB
File Date: Thursday, June 9, 2016
Plaintiff: Christopher “Chris” Wayne Fillmore
Plaintiff Counsel: Pro Se
Defendant: Jason Blum d/b/a Blumhouse Productions, Jeanette Brill, Luke Dawson, Matthew Kaplan d/b/a Chapter One Films, Robyn Marshall, Jimmy Miller d/b/a Mosaic Management, Rick Osaka d/b/a Catchlight Films, Jeremy Slater, Cody Zwieg d/b/a Supergravity Pictures, Does 1-10
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Author dissatisfied with own cover art sues book publisher

08 Wednesday Jun 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

This dispute arises between an author and his book publisher. In addition to writing a book, the author also designed his own original artwork for the cover. After two rounds of artwork proofs, the publisher allegedly went ahead and published the book without the author’s final approval (the author had actually signed the final approval form but claims to have later redacted his approval via email…the full story is laid out in the Exhibits below).

The book publisher is alleged to have “knowingly published and printed Plaintiff’s Works even after Plaintiff made very clear to Defendant of his displeasure and dissatisfaction of the cover art for his Works as proposed by Defendant.”

In case you’re wondering, the VARA right of attribution – by which the author could prevent the use of his name in connection with a prejudicial modification of his work – doesn’t apply here due to the exception in 17 USC 106A(c)(3):

(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101

Here’s that section from 17 USC 101, my emphasis added:

(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;

(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 7.41.24 AM

Murdock v. Author Solutions, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01398-SEB-DML
File Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Plaintiff: Antara Murdock
Plaintiff Counsel: Mathew K. Higbee, Esq. of Higbee & Associates
Defendant: Author Solutions, LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Exhibits:

Great Divide Brewing sues Red Yeti Brewing over Yeti trademarks

06 Monday Jun 2016

Posted by in Branding, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Denver-based Great Divide Brewing Company has been using the registered trademark YETI in connection with “Beer and Ale” since 2005. Specifically, Great Divide has a range of imperial stouts utilizing the Yeti word mark and a design mark of the outline of a yeti, the pose closely emulating the gait from the famous Bigfoot video. Great Divide’s yeti is usually white on packaging and marketing materials, but sometimes red.

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 6.22.07 AM

Jeffersonville, Indiana-based The Red Yeti, a restaurant/brewpub serving a limited selection of its own beer (currently a porter and hefeweizen), recently celebrated its second anniversary. Their logo is, not surprisingly, a red yeti in the typical walking pose.

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 6.17.42 AM

When Red Yeti failed to satisfactorily meet Great Divide’s cessation demands, this lawsuit was filed. Stay tuned for updates.

Great Divide Brewing Company v. Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:16-cv-00084-TWP-DML
File Date: Friday, June 3, 2016
Plaintiff: Great Divide Brewing Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael W. McClain, Robert W. DeWees, III of McClain DeWees, PLLC
Defendant: Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Deceptive Trade Practices
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Indiana Botanic Gardens files lawsuit to protect EUCAMINT trademark

01 Wednesday Jun 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This trademark dispute between Hobart, Indiana-based Indiana Botanic Gardens and a California defendant involves the use of the trademark EUCAMINT in connection with camphorated ointments. The Plaintiff has used its trademark since 1925.

The Defendant has been using the EUCAMINT mark in connection with a eucalyptus shower mist since as early as 2013.

Camphor used to be made by distilling the bark and wood of the camphor tree. Today, camphor is chemically manufactured from turpentine oil. It is used in products such as Vicks VapoRub. –WebMD

Indiana Botanic Gardens Inc v. Snyder Manufacturing Corporation

Court Case Number: 2:16-cv-00197-JD-PRC
File Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Plaintiff: Indiana Botanic Gardens, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: David C. Brezina, Boris Umansky of Ladas & Parry LLP
Defendant: Snyder Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Eurospa Aromatics d/b/a Eurospa Chemicals
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Paul R. Cherry

Complaint: