Category Archives: Southern District of Indiana

Atlas Van Lines sues Atlas Moving Systems for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

27 Tuesday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Plaintiffs in this trademark lawsuit, Atlas Van Lines of Evansville, Indiana, have been transporting goods under the name “Atlas” since 1948. The Atlas family of companies includes more than 430 independent Atlas agencies across the U.S. and Canada, plus authorized partners in 140 countries.

The Defendant is alleged to have offered its moving services to the public since 2015 under the fictitious business name “Atlas Moving Systems AMS,” constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The Plaintiffs first sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Defendants in September 2017. A follow-up letter was sent in November 2020, over three (3) years later. There is no explanation given in the Complaint (below) for the lengthy delay by Plaintiffs in enforcing their trademark rights. However, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction has also been filed along with the Complaint so they’ve clearly determined that they can now no longer abide the Defendants’ ongoing presence in the marketplace. The supporting Memorandum (below) documents instances of actual consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for updates.

AWGI, LLC et al. v. CLD Trucking Co. d/b/a Atlas Moving Systems AMS

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00117-RLY-MPB
File Date: Thursday, July 22, 2021
Plaintiff: AWGI, LLC, Atlas Van Lines, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mark. F. Warzecha, Esq. of Wideman Malek, PL
Defendant: CLD Trucking Co. d/b/a Atlas Moving Systems AMS
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

Cute/Horrifying Baby Teeth Photograph Leads to Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

26 Monday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Plaintiff in this copyright lawsuit is an infant photographer who uses photo editing software to add teeth to her infant subjects. Depending on your aesthetic tastes, the resulting photographs range somewhere between cute and horrifying.

The Defendant sells teeth whitening and oral care products and allegedly used one of the Plaintiff’s photographs in a Facebook advertisement in August 2019. The photograph was altered to whiten the teeth and remove the Plaintiff’s watermark. The advertisement (below) included a link to the Defendant’s website and a “Shop Now” button.

It’s hard to see this lawsuit going very far; it’s slightly ridiculous it had to be filed at all. This situation seems like it would be a perfect fit for a small claims copyright court. Hopefully the parties can soon find an amicable resolution, like an appropriate license fee, for the (possibly) 4one-time use of Plaintiff’s photograph. If the Defendant somehow determines it would make more sense to litigate, we might see them challenge jurisdiction in Indiana.

Stay tuned for updates.

Haehl v. Dr. Brite, LLC

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02072-JPH-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2021
Plaintiff: Amy Haehl
Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Stohry Dean LLP
Defendant: Dr. Brite, LLC
Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement, Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Mid-July 2021 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

16 Friday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

I hope everyone is having a great summer. The last month brought us a few interesting new trademark lawsuits in Indiana and four Answers in ongoing cases. The Courts seem to be fully back in action following a long pandemic lull. Without further ado, here are the mid-July 2021 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation updates:

Noble Romans, Inc. v. Gateway Triangle Corp. et al. (SD, filed 2/5/2021) – The parties had a telephonic status conference with the Court on June 21 and both parties report discovery is largely complete. This case is set for an in-person settlement conference on Friday, August 20.

Heartland Consumer Products LLC v. Speedway, LLC (SD, filed 2/5/2021) – The lawsuit was dismissed on June 24, 2021 pursuant to a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

Watch Communications v. Jarman et al. (SD, filed 3/8/2021) – An Answer to the First Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint was filed on June 30, 2021, with additional details about the parties’ interactions.

La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC v. Lopez et al. (SD, filed 3/9/2021) – The lawsuit was dismissed on June 17, 2021 pursuant to a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC v. Galan et al. (ND, filed 3/9/2021) – On July 12, 2021, the Defendants filed their Answer.

Vroom, Inc. v. Midwest Motors LLC et al. (SD, filed 3/24/2021) – The parties had a telephonic status conference with the Court on June 23, 2021. They were ordered to report on the status of settlement by July 23, 2021.

Delta Faucet Company v. Iakovlev et al. (SD, filed 3/25/2021) – No update.

ABI Attachments, Inc. v. Kiser Arena Specialists, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 4/12/2021) – An Answer was filed on June 16, 2021.

Triple LLL Truck Repair, Inc. v. Triple LLL, Inc. et al. (ND, filed 4/26/2021) – The Defendants did not respond to the Complaint by a July 7, 2021 deadline. Nothing else to report.

Energy Beverages LLC v. Full Throttle Automotive LLC (SD, filed 5/19/2021) – The Defendant has been granted an extension until July 30, 2021 to respond to the Complaint.

Monster Energy Company v. R&R Medical, LLC d/b/a Bear KompleX (ND, filed 5/26/2021) – A Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is currently scheduled for July 29, 2021, although a consent motion to reschedule and extend deadlines was filed on July 15, 2021.

Egglife Foods, Inc. v. Crepini, LLC (ND, filed 5/28/2021) – No update yet.

Gatewood v. Webber Chappelle (ND, filed 6/4/2021) – No update yet.

Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC v. Lynn Retails, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 6/4/2021) – Defense counsel (Van T. Willis) filed an Appearance on July 6, 2021 but no other updates.

Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. AMI Stores Management, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 6/6/2021) – An Answer was filed on July 9, 2021. An initial pretrial conference is set for August 3, 2021.

Valqari LLC v. Dronedek Corporation et al. (SD, filed 6/16/2021) – No update yet.

Fitzgerald et al. v. Murray et al. (SD, filed 6/18/2021) – No update yet.

Phoenix Intangibles Holding Company et al. v. Virk Brothers, LLC et al. (ND, filed 7/9/2021) – No update yet.

Poulsen Roser A/S v. Gardens Alive, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 7/14/2021) – No update yet.

June 2021 Updates

May 2021 Updates

April 2021 Updates

Poulsen files Trademark Lawsuit in Indiana over Counterfeit “Ingrid Bergman” Roses

15 Thursday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet –William Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet

Poulsen Roser is a family-owned Danish company world-famous for its breeding of distinctive rose varieties, for which it obtains patent and trademark protection. A lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of Indiana involving their INGRID BERGMAN rose, a “unique currant red hybrid tea rose variety.” Poulsen owns a U.S. trademark registration for INGRID BERGMAN in connection with “live roses.”

The Defendants operate one of the U.S.’s largest wholesale rose growers, distributing flowers to garden centers, nurseries, and mail order outlets.

This lawsuit arises because the Defendants are allegedly producing, advertising, selling, and distributing unauthorized roses using the Poulsen’s INGRID BERGMAN mark. Further bibliographical information on the Defendants’ website about their “counterfeit” roses (see screenshot) might suggest to consumers that they are in fact authentic Poulsen roses.

Surely this situation can’t be as cut and dried as the Complaint (below) would imply. A large wholesale grower like the Defendants would certainly understand the implications of selling unauthorized rose varieties and know they couldn’t escape detection. We’ll have to stay tuned for their Answer and another possible side of the story.

Poulsen Roser A/S vs. Gardens Alive, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 4:21-cv-00113-SEB-DML
File Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2021
Plaintiff: Poulsen Roser A/S
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Gardens Alive, Inc., Early Morning LLC d/b/a Weeks Roses
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competion, Federal False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conversion, Theft
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Author Sued for Copyright Infringement, RICO Violation over Unauthorized Tell-all Book about Deceased Metaphysician

21 Monday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The parties to this copyright lawsuit have a long personal history.

The Plaintiff, Fitzgerald, was the executor of the estate of Frithjof Schuon (“Schuon”), a Swiss metaphysician and author, who died in Bloomington, Indiana in May 1998.

The Defendant, Murray, was a close friend of Schuon and his wife until 1992. From 1992-1995, Murray allegedly made aggressive communications, including threatening letters, to Schuon. Murray repeatedly violated a Protective Order, leading to her incarceration. Murray then filed four lawsuits against the Schuons, two of which were dismissed and two which were settled via a Settlement Agreement that included a confidentiality provision.

Photo by Michael Fitzgerald, CC BY 2.5, No changes made.

After Schuon died in 1998, his wife inherited his right of publicity and copyrights. Those rights were subsequently assigned to Plaintiff World Wisdom, Inc. (“World Wisdom”) in 2003. Mrs. Schuon’s rights under the Settlement Agreement were assigned to Fitzgerald and World Wisdom in 2021. World Wisdom also was assigned rights in Mrs. Schuon’s own right of publicity and copyrights.

In April 2018, Murray published a website that contained many criticisms of Schuon. The website allegedly infringes some of Mrs. Schuon’s copyrighted works and violates the confidentiality provision of the earlier Settlement Agreement. Further, in 2021, Murray published a book, Third Wife of the Muslim Shaykh Frithjof Schuon, that allegedly infringes numerous copyrighted works of Mrs. Schuon. Murray’s publisher, Defendant Beacon Books and Media, discontinued print publication of the book in March 2021 but electronic versions remain available. The Defendants have apparently intimidated that further print versions of the book are forthcoming.

In addition to copyright and breach of contract claims, the Complaint (below) also includes a claim for a RICO violation based on alleged racketeering activity by the Defendants.

Given the long history between the parties and the seemingly contrary position of the Defendants, the Answer should be an interesting read. Stay tuned for updates.

Fitzgerald et al. v. Murray et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB
File Date: Friday, June 18, 2021
Plaintiff: Michael Fitzgerald, World Wisdom, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, Jason M. Rauch, Elizabeth A. Charles of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Maude Murray, Beacon Books and Media, LTD
Cause: Civil RICO, Copyright Infringement, Right of Publicity, Breach of Contract, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint: