Category Archives: Northern District of Indiana

What a Schedule A Case Is (and Why This Blog Usually Skips Them)

02 Friday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

If you scan the Northern District of Indiana copyright and trademark indexes, you will keep seeing captions like Plaintiff v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A. That is not a missing name. That is the case. The real defendants – often dozens or hundreds of Amazon, eBay, Temu, or Shopify storefronts – are listed on a sealed exhibit filed with the complaint. Counsel asks for a temporary restraining order, an asset freeze, and leave to serve by email. Many of those defendants never appear. Defaults follow. The docket looks busy but the local story is thin.

These filings started as a Northern District of Illinois habit and migrated. Hammond now sees a regular diet of them. Some are trademark counterfeiting. Some are copyright. The plaintiff is often a brand or a designer with no Indiana office. The “Indiana” connection is venue and a magistrate who will sign a TRO. That is enough for the statute. It is not enough for the kind of post this blog is for.

This site follows named parties, local businesses, university marks, and the occasional food truck that could not sort out a cease-and-desist. A sealed schedule of overseas sellers does not give you that. There is usually no public complaint worth quoting, no Indiana hook beyond the case number, and no answer coming. When a Schedule A filing names a real local defendant or turns into something other than a default mill, it will earn a post. Until then, you will see those captions in the monthly wrap, if at all, and not as a standalone post.

Stay tuned for the cases with names on both sides of the “v.”

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

BIOCOTE vs. BIOCOAT…are you confused?

11 Friday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

BioCote Limited sues BioBond Adhesives for trademark infringement in N.D. Ind. (4:26-cv-00086)

BioCote Limited sued Lafayette adhesives maker BioBond Adhesives, Inc. on August 19, 2026, in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, Case No. 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, Indiana trademark and unfair competition claims, and breach of a brand license over BioBond’s BIOCOAT antimicrobial coatings.

The Complaint (below) is a licensee fight, not a stranger-on-the-internet fight. UK company BioCote owns U.S. Registration No. 5,306,757 for the BIOCOTE logo in Class 2 for antimicrobial powder-coating compositions (issued October 10, 2017; first U.S. sales under the mark pleaded as at least 2013). It licenses the chemistry and the mark to partners who put BIOCOTE on finished goods. BioBond, which makes plant-based adhesives and protective coatings in Lafayette, is pleaded as one of those partners. Under the Brand Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, BioBond took a non-exclusive license to the BIOCOTE mark, agreed the IP stayed with BioCote, and promised it “must not use in its business any other trademark similar to the [BioCote] Mark,” must not apply to register “Biocote [or] any similar word,” and must not do anything that would diminish the registration.

BioBond then launched BioCoat SUP250 and BioCoat SWaE250 – water-based polyurethane and epoxy coatings marketed for food-processing surfaces and “defense against mold, fungi, and other microorganisms” – and, the Complaint says, filed a standard-character U.S. application for BIOCOAT covering anti-mold, anti-fungal, and anti-microbial protective coatings. BioCote says it learned of the filing from a watch notice, understood after discussions that BioBond would drop the mark and the application, then found the application still moving. It opposed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91303474) and now wants the Northern District to stop the use.

The pleaded theory is short: BIOCOTE and BIOCOAT share five of seven letters and, BioCote says, sound the same; the goods are antimicrobial coatings sold into overlapping industrial channels; and the customer was already a licensed BIOCOTE partner, which the Complaint says makes source confusion worse, not better. BioCote seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against BIOCOAT, destruction of marked packaging, refusal or cancellation of the application, damages (including a treble/enhanced-damages request on alleged willfulness), and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

BioCote Limited vs. BioBond Adhesives, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ
File Date: August 19, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: BioCote Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie L. Teaford, H. Jonathan Redway, Nicole M. Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin; Indiana Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Breach of Contract
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Gretchen S. Lund
Referred To: Abizer Zanzi

Complaint:

BioCote Limited ComplaintDownload

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.

October 2024 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

01 Friday Nov 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

No-file November is here…will Indiana IP litigators be able to withhold from filing any new lawsuits this month? Time will tell. For now, read on below for updates from October on all pending Indiana trademark and copyright litigation:

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc. (ND, filed 8/31/2021) –  No update this month.

Gabet et al. v. Amazon.com. Inc. et al. (ND, filed 1/20/2022) – If you’re following this lawsuit closely, go check PACER, because there are 35 new entries since last month. Most of it involves Amazon’s Motion for Attorney Fees filed on October 4, 2024.

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel et al (ND, filed 5/18/2022) – No update this month.

Honest Abe Roofing franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al. (SD, filed 9/7/2022) – No update this month. 

The Center for Gestalt Development, Inc. v. Bowman (SD (11/09/2022) – On October 9, 2024, the Court entered a slightly scathing Order against the plaintiff on Defendant Robine’s Motion to Compel. The plaintiff was ordered to provide a privilege log, amend its discovery responses, and also pay some attorney fees. On October 29, 2024, the plaintiff notified the Court of its compliance, but that was immediately challenged by Defendant Robine the following day with an objection.

National College Resources Foundation v. The Strong Friends LLC et al. (ND 5/4/2023) –  No update this month.

Nickel and Dimes Incorporated v. Noah’s Arcade LLC et al (ND 7/25/2023) – No update this month.

Banjo Corporation v. Green Leaf, Inc. (SD 9/29/2023) – A Discovery Conference was held on October 28, 2024 and the parties have 10 days to communicate any outstanding discovery requests.

Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. v. Dr. Permagreen, LLC et al. (ND 10/06/2023) –  On October 24, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, giving the defendants 14 days to supplement their discovery responses.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v. Luxury Mattress & Furniture, LLC (ND 11/09/2023) – No update this month.

Stross v. Homestead Properties, Inc. (SD 11/09/2023) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 11, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 15, 2024.

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al v. CNB Retailers, LLC et al. (ND 2/08/2024) – A Stipulated Consent Injunction Order was entered on October 16, 2024.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. et al. (SD 2/14/2024) – Answers to Interrogatories were submitted by both Key Bank and Ally Bank, in furtherance of the plaintiff’s pursuit of garnishment.

Sadowski v. Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV (SD 2/21/2024) – No update this month.

Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Company, LLC (SD 3/1/2024) – No update this month.

Rigsby v. All Seasons Roofing (ND 3/14/2024) – No update this month. 

Guangzhou Shima Decoration Materials Co., Ltd v. Shenzhen Ruimingxiang Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (SD 4/11/2024) – No update this month.

Howarth v. My Sauna World LLC (SD (4/29/2024) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 22, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 23, 2024.

Peugh et al. v. Nadler et al. (SD 5/3/2024) – Dismissal papers are due by November 7, 2024.

NutraMax Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Abumayyaleh Bros LLC et al. (SD 6/20/2024) – On October 17, 2024, the plaintiff advised the court of ongoing settlement negotiations and a further update will be provided by November 18, 2024.

Miller v. Empire News LLC (SD 6/26/2024) – No update this month.

LifeWise, Inc. v. Parrish (ND 7/2/2024) – The plaintiff has been granted until November 5, 2024 to file a reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Forest River, Inc. v. Sharpline Converting, Inc. (ND 7/2/2024) – A Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is scheduled on November 19, 2024.

AWGI, LLC et al. v. Atlas Mover Group LLC et al. (SD 7/15/2024) – Clerk’s Entry of Default was entered on October 7, 2024. A Motion for Default Judgment and supporting Brief were filed on October 15, 2024.

Pepy v. Angie’s Lists, Inc. d/b/a Angi (SD 7/18/2024) – The plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on October 17, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on October 22, 2024.

Hiker Industries, LLC v. Hyk Outdoors LLC (SD 8/5/2024) – The lawsuit has been settled and dismissal papers are due by December 16, 2024.

My Market LLC v. Batth Markets Inc. et al. (SD 8/6/2024) – The Complaint was served as of October 7, 2024.

Legacy Chiropractic, LLC v. Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC (ND 8/9/2024) – The defendant filed its Answer on October 2, 2024. A Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is scheduled on November 26, 2024.

BCW Diversified, Inc. v. Ultra Pro International, LLC (SD 9/30/2024) – Waiver of service was executed on October 29, 2024. Kathryn Kent has filed an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.

Jumpstart Communications LLC v. Jumper et al. (ND 10/22/2024) – No update yet.

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC et al. (SD 1o/25/2024) – No update yet.

Delta Faucet Company v. Bundrick et al. (SD 10/28/2024) – No update yet.

September 2024 Updates

August 2024 Updates – July 2024 Updates – June 2024 Updates – May 2024 Updates

April 2024 Updates – March 2024 Updates – February 2024 Updates – January 2024 Updates

December 2023 Updates – December 2022 Updates –  December 2021 Updates

Carmel Teenager sued over Counterfeit Eric Emanuel Apparel

31 Thursday Oct 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The plaintiff in this Indiana trademark lawsuit is a New York-based luxury sportswear designer, Eric Emanuel. The defendant is a Carmel, Indiana teenager allegedly selling counterfeit Eric Emanuel apparel imported from China. Per the Complaint (below), the counterfeit products are allegedly bought by the defendant from China suppliers, stored at his mother’s Carmel home, and promoted and sold online.

The fashion designer seeks the teenager’s profits, actual and compensatory damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. It seems this teenager picked the wrong designer to counterfeit and what seemed like a “get rich quick” scheme could quickly turn to “get poor quick.”

Stay tuned for updates.

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01895-JPH-TAB
File Date: October 25, 2024
Plaintiff: EE Holding Group LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Anne K. Ricchiuto of Peele Law Group
Defendant: PDGROWTH LLC, Patrick D. Garton
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Endorsement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

JUMPSTART COMMUNICATIONS vs. JUMPSTART COMMUNICATION…are you confused?

31 Thursday Oct 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The parties to this new Indiana trademark lawsuit have a long personal history, including previously being married, but we’re taking a look at the case for its intellectual property claims, i.e. trademark infringement between the marks JUMPSTART COMMUNICATIONS and JUMPSTART COMMUNICATION. The companies offer the same services, telecommunications construction services, in the same geographic area. The Complaint (below) provides some details about the defendant’s decision to choose a similar name, along with other allegedly damaging behavior, including solicitation of customers and employees.

Stay tuned for updates, although I don’t expect this case to last very long, at least the trademark claims. There are some additional claims that may linger even if the trademark issue is resolved, for example, by a name change.

Jumpstart Communications LLC v. Jumper et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00447-HAB-SLC
File Date: October 22, 2024
Plaintiff: Jumpstart Communications LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Carrie E. Sheridan, J.Blake Hike, Brendan C. Ruff, Stephanie Fleming of Carson LLP
Defendant: Ryan Jumper, Jumpstart Communication LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Unfair Competition, RICO Violations, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Business Relationship, Civil Theft
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint: