Category Archives: Southern District of Indiana

Breach of contract leads to lawsuit over psychotherapy techniques, trademarks

30 Tuesday Jul 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit, Functional Family Therapy Associates, Inc. is a Seattle, Washington-based organization dedicated to training psychotherapists. Plaintiff utilizes a “Functional Family Therapy” protocol to help troubled youth and their families overcome a variety of behavioral problems. Plaintiff provides services in 33 U.S. states and 10 foreign countries.

The Defendants allegedly operate an entity in Bloomington, Indiana called Functional Family Therapy Associates, in violation of Plaintiff’s registered trademarks. One of the Defendants, Sexton, was previously a member of Plaintiff’s organization. More detailed facts are set forth in the (redacted) complaint below.

This lawsuit arises from a breach of contract and the Defendants’ false advertising, unfair competition, and service mark infringement resulting from Defendants’ unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s registered and common law intellectual property rights in Plaintiff’s unique and original family therapeutic services protocol and Plaintiff’s development, testing, training, and marketing thereof.

An unredacted Complaint was filed under seal pursuant to a confidentiality obligation in an agreement between the parties.

F.F.T., LLC v. Sexton, Ph.D et al

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-03027-RLY-MJD
File Date: Friday, July 19, 2019
Plaintiff: F.F.T., LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Holiday W. Banta, T. Earl LeVere, Megan Hedrick of Ice Miller LLP
Defendant: Thomas Sexton, Ph.D., Functional Family Therapy Associates, Inc., Astrid Van Dam
Cause: Breach of Contract, Wrongful Interference with Business Relationships and Prospective Business Advantages, Wrongful Interference with a Contractual Relationship, Unfair Competition, False Advertising, Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Redacted Complaint:

Color Me Badd founding members in court over band name dispute

02 Tuesday Jul 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Two members of the formerly popular R&B group “Color Me Badd” are in a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana over the ability of one member to continue using the band’s name in his ongoing solo career.

The named Plaintiff, Bryan Abrams, and Defendant, Mark Calderon, have a recent history of quarreling, including a physical altercation on stage in 2018 that led to Abram’s arrest.

In this lawsuit filed on Monday, July 1, Abrams is challenging Calderon’s ability to use the Color Me Badd name for his solo career, while Calderon (via his attorney) maintains that “Mr. Calderon and Mr. Abrams have equal right to use and exploit the mark provided each party accounts to the other for such use.”

Check out the Complaint (below) for a more detailed history of the parties and Color Me Badd. Stay tuned for updates to see how the parties resolve their band name dispute.

CMB Entertainment, LLC et al v. Mark Calderon and Pyramid Entertainment Group, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-02703-RLY-DML
File Date: Monday, July 1, 2019
Plaintiff: CMB Entertainment, LLC, Bryan Abrams
Plaintiff Counsel: James J. Ammeen, Jr. of Ammeen Valenzuela Associates LLP., Brian D. Caplan of Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC
Defendant: Mark Calderon, Pyramid Entertainment Group, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Dispute over Great Western Trail publishing rights leads to trademark lawsuit

18 Thursday Apr 2019

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This is an interesting dispute involving board game publishing rights and exclusive trademark licensing.

The Complaint (below) references a contract by which the plaintiff, Stronghold Games, would exclusively publish a board game called “Great Western Trail” from August 3, 2016 to December 31, 2018. At that time, the game was owned by a German company called eggertspiele. The Complaint alleges that one of the obligations eggertspiele agreed to in the contract was it “will not during the term grant to any other person, firm or company any rights that would derogate from the grant made” in its contract with Stronghold Games.

Stronghold first released Great Western Trail in the U.S. in November 2016. It was very popular and quickly sold out. However, while seeking permission for a second print run of the game in June 2017, Stronghold learned that all assets of eggertspiele had been purchased by Plan B Games, the defendant.

Plan B Games asserted that it had no contract with Stronghold and it did not grant reprint rights to Stronghold. Subsequently, in January 2018, Plan B Games released its own version of Great Western Trail, seemingly identical but removing Stronghold’s logo from the packaging.

Screen Shot 2019-04-17 at 11.03.19 AM.png

I think this paragraph from the Complaint nicely sums up why Stronghold is unhappy with the current state of affairs: “Plan B was well aware of the pent-up demand for the Stronghold Version of this game in 2017, and the introduction of the nearly identical Plan B Version in early 2018 to satisfy the pent-up demand for the Stronghold Version improperly traded on Stronghold’s goodwill and has led to consumer confusion.”

Unfortunately, while the Complaint references the initial contract between Stronghold and eggertspiele granting publication rights, it didn’t include a copy of the contract for review. Although the contract apparently included language about minimum duration and exclusivity, it’s unclear whether the contract granted any property interest in the Great Western Trail trademark to Stronghold.

As general information, license agreements can give licensees standing to sue for infringement, provided that they grant an exclusive license and a property interest in the trademark. A trademark licensee’s proper use of a mark benefits the trademark owner, not the licensee. This allows trademark owners to rely on use by controlled licensees to prove continuing use of a trademark. Section 5 of the Lanham Act explicitly recognizes the acquisition of trademark rights by a licensor through first use of the mark by a controlled licensee.

However, in this situation, Stronghold appears to assert its own claim to property rights in the GREAT WESTERN TRAIL trademark distinct from the licensor, based on its own exclusive marketing efforts in the United States.

I look forward to reading the Answer, which hopefully will include the original contract. Stay tuned for updates.

Indie Game Studios, LLC v. Plan B Games, Inc et al.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-1492
File Date: Monday, April 15, 2019
Plaintiff: Indie Game Studios, LLC d/b/a Stronghold Games LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Olmstead, Jr., John Bradshaw
Defendant: Plan B Games, Inc., Plan B Games Europe GMBH
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conspiracy
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Indianapolis company accused of selling counterfeit LED lighting fixtures

15 Monday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

An Indianapolis company has been accused of selling counterfeit LED lighting fixtures.

Electra Display, on Indy’s southeast side, has been sued for copyright infringement based upon the alleged copying of the plaintiff’s intellectual property, including copyrighted images from plaintiff’s sales brochures, and false advertising, based on Electra’s use of the images to deceive customers into believing that it sold plaintiff’s products, when Electra is alleged to actually sell an inferior, knock off product made by a Chinese manufacturer.

Screen Shot 2019-04-15 at 5.47.58 AM.png

The plaintiff, Massachusetts-based JLC-Tech LLC, owns several patents for its LED lighting technology, but doesn’t assert any patent infringement claims in the Complaint (below). Rather, this lawsuit simply seeks damages and injunctive relief against the use of the sales photographs and misleading advertising. 

Stay tuned for updates.

JLC-Tech LLC v. Electra Display

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-01468-TWP-DLP
File Date: Thursday, April 11, 2019
Plaintiff: JLC-Tech LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Darren A. Craig of Frost Brown Todd LLC
Defendant: Edge Systems Group LLC d/b/a Electra Display
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Advertising
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Doris L. Pryor

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