Category Archives: Southern District of Indiana

Indiana Trade Dress Litigation Update – KM Innovations v. Opportunities, Inc.

13 Thursday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This is a trade dress lawsuit involving the product packaging for synthetic fiber snowballs. See the Complaint below for a description of the similarities and some really grainy comparison photos.

Plaintiff is based in New Castle, Indiana. Defendant is based in Colo, Iowa, which has a population of 876 and is named after a railroad official’s dog.

KM Innovations LLC v. Opportunities, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00199-SEB-DML
File Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Plaintiff: KM Innovations LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Dean E. McConnell of McConnell Intellectual Property Law
Defendant: Opportunities, Inc.
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Chartreuse v. Chartreuse Fragrances

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Plaintiff in this Declaratory Judgment action is an Indianapolis-based LLC that has used the CHARTREUSE trademark in connection with “handmade soy candles” since January 2013.

Screen Shot 2014-02-11 at 7.49.29 AM

Defendant is a New Jersey-based LLC that owns a federal registration for CHARTREUSE in connection with “Candles,” with a date of first use in commerce in April 2002. Defendant sent a “cease and desist” letter to Plaintiff in January 2014 asserting their trademark rights. Plaintiff responded by filing a complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Unenforceability and Invalidity.

The Plaintiff asserts in their Complaint that Defendant has not used their trademark for over three (3) years, that the CHARTREUSE mark is descriptive and therefore not entitled to registration and that the claimed date of first use in the registration is inaccurate. If these things can be proved, Plaintiff may have a shot to invalidate the registration. However, in addition to counterclaims based on the federal registration, I’d expect Defendant’s Response to include a full slate of common law trademark infringement counterclaims based on their lengthy use of their trademark.

Maybe I’m in the wrong line of work. There must be good money in “handmade soy candles” if Plaintiff can afford to hire a big law firm to pursue federal litigation to protect a trademark in use for just over a year.

Chartreuse LLC v. Chartreuse Fragrances LLC

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00181-WTL-DKL
File Date: Friday, February 07, 2014
Plaintiff: Chartreuse LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: Chartreuse Fragrances LLC
Cause: Unenforceability and Invalidity of Defendant’s Mark, Non-Infringement of Trademark
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

 

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – James Dean v. Twitter

10 Monday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Screen Shot 2014-02-10 at 4.21.44 PMHere’s a potential Giant of a lawsuit.

Plaintiff, James Dean Inc., wants the @JamesDean Twitter handle. Somebody else has been using the Twitter handle since 2009 as a fan account for the Fairmount, Indiana-raised rebel movie icon. The @JamesDean account has more than 8,200 followers and has sent over 2,200 tweets. CMG Worldwide, the exclusive licensee of James Dean’s name and likeness, unable to convince Twitter to hand over the account, are now suing Twitter directly in federal court to force compliance. Twitter looks set to put up a full defense rather than subject themselves to an onslaught of username complaints.

Stay tuned for what will likely become a precedent-setting case for dead celebrity Twitter handles.

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00183-WTL-DML
File Date: Friday, February 07, 2014
Plaintiff: James Dean, Inc., John Doe, One, John Doe, Two, John Doe, Three, John Doe, Four
Plaintiff Counsel: Theodore J. Minch of Sovich Minch, LLP
Defendant: Twitter, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Endorsement, Indiana State Statutory Right of Publicity, Common Law Right of Publicity, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Conversion, Deception, Indiana Crime Victims’ Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Cybersquatting Litigation Update – BidPal v. Intermediaone et al

07 Friday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Plaintiff, BidPal, Inc., owns a federal trademark registration for BIDPAL. Defendant owns several BidPal-formative domain names, including Bidpal.com, Bidpal.org, Bidpal.info, Bidpal.biz, Bidpal.mobi, all of which are GoDaddy parked pages. Plaintiff made several attempts to contact Defendant but was unable to reach him.

Screen Shot 2014-02-07 at 10.45.14 AM

Plaintiff’s Complaint makes an interesting assertion that, since Defendant owns all of the domains listed above, Plaintiff was forced to adopt ” the far-inferior domain name www.bidpalnetwork.com.” In the age of search, where bidpalnetwork.com ranks 1st on the Google search results for “Bidpal” and none of Defendant’s domains rank at all, do you agree that there’s such a thing as a “far-inferior” domain name? Or just preferred and non-preferred domain names?

Plaintiff may be hoping for a Default Judgment if Defendant doesn’t decide to defend himself. This case may also help determine whether Indiana courts will rule that “parked” domains can constitute cybersquatting. Stay tuned for updates.

BidPal Inc. v. Intermediaone et al

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00168-RLY-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, February 05, 2014
Plaintiff: BidPal Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul B. Overhauser of Overhauser Law Offices LLC
Defendant: Intermediaone, Intermediaone-AGB, Peter Peterre, Bidpal.com, Bidpal.org, Bidpal.info, Bidpal.biz, Bidpal.mobi
Cause: Cybersquatting, Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Cummins v. T’Shirt Factory

17 Tuesday Dec 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Here’s a lawsuit over counterfeit apparel being sold at kiosks around Indiana malls bearing the CUMMINS trademark. Cummins is an Indianapolis-based designer and manufacturer of power generation equipment, power systems, gasoline engines, custom power supplies. Check out some sample “counterfeits” below:

Counterfeiting

Cummins, Inc. v. T’Shirt Factory et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01972-WTL-DML
File Date: Friday, December 13, 2013
Plaintiff: Cummins, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: T. Joseph Wendt of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: T’Shirt Factory, Freedom Custom Z, Shamir Harutyunyan, Does 1-10
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, Trademark Counterfeiting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch