• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Trade Dress

New Indianapolis Bouldering Facility sues Accusers for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement

12 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trade Dress, Trade Secret

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Mark J. Dinsmore, Non-Violation of Alleged Trade Secrets

The Plaintiff in this action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement is a yet-to-open rock climbing gym in Indianapolis, Indiana. More specifically, the planned gym will provide a venue for “bouldering,” a type of rock climbing low enough to the ground to be done without safety ropes.

The Defendants operate similar “bouldering” facilities in Washington (State), Texas, and Minneapolis. As admitted in the Complaint (see Complaint, Section 10, below), “For a brief period of time in late 2020, one of Plaintiff’s members used content from one of Defendant’s websites as placeholder text during the website design process. This text was removed after two weeks of being publically available, and has been replaced by Plaintiff’s current website: https://www.northmassboulder.com/.”

The Defendants contacted the Plaintiff via counsel in December 2020, at which time the “infringing” content was removed from Plaintiff’s website. Nonetheless, dialogue between the parties’ counsel was apparently unproductive and it became clear that Defendants were going to sue Plaintiff. As such, the Indianapolis-based Plaintiff seized the initiative and filed a declaratory judgment action to prove their lack of infringement.

Declaratory judgment actions are always interesting as they flip the usual filing paradigm (i.e. the infringed filing against the infringer). There is an admitted temporary use by Plaintiff of some of the Defendant’s online content but other issues like trade dress and trade secrets are raised in the Complaint and will be interesting to follow to resolution. Stay tuned for updates.

Indianapolis Bouldering, LLC v. BP Holdings Company, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00344-JMS-JMD
File Date: February 11, 2021 
Plaintiff: Indianapolis Bouldering, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Steven T. Henke of TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
Defendant: BP Holdings Company, LLC, Seattle Bouldering Project, LLC, Minneapolis Bouldering Project, LLC, and Austin Bouldering Project, LLC
Cause: Invalidity or Unenforceability of Intellectual Property Rights, Non-Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, Non-Violation of Alleged Trade Secrets
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Splenda Manufacturer sues Speedway Gas Stations over Knock-off Chinese Sweetener

10 Wednesday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, False or Misleading Representation of Fact, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Trade Dress Infringement

Splenda®-loving Speedway patrons beware! Or not.

In the second gas station-related lawsuit this week, Speedway gas stations are accused of providing knock-off Chinese-manufactured Splenda, the well-known sugar substitute sweetener. For our health-minded blog readers who don’t touch the stuff or just crave real sugar, Splenda sweetener is actually sucralose, a low-calorie sugar-substitute first approved by the FDA in 1998.

Splenda’s manufacturer claims trade dress protection for sucralose sold in yellow packets, of which diner-frequenters, coffee and tea drinkers probably recognize:

Speedway is accused of providing knock-off Chinese sucralose sweetener in yellow packaging at their gas station coffee kiosks. The Plaintiff asserts that “Speedway’s yellow-colored packets are not provided to customers with sufficient cues to the consumer to prevent the mistaken belief by consumers that the yellow packets are in fact SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener.”

Blog readers, would you see the above packet at a coffee kiosk and automatically assume that it is Splenda®? If so, reach out to Plaintiff’s attorney, because that’s the basis of this lawsuit. (Aside: Did you know there are over 50 shades of yellow?)

Splenda’s manufacturer asserts trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and dilution claims against Speedway. This will be an interesting case to follow, with both parties being fairly large companies, and presumably with Speedway gas stations already providing their yellow “knock-off” sweetener widely. Not being a coffee drinker (although married to one), I can only guess at what goes through the coffee drinker’s mind before consuming that cherished travel-sized cup of lukewarm gas station bitter brown water, but I really wonder if they are confused by the yellow packaging or whether they care at all. I suspect coffee drinkers grabbing a free packet of sweetener from a gas station kiosk don’t care at all what type of sucralose they’re ingesting, so long as the delivery medium is decently warm and caffeinated. Speedway’s packaging does not mention “Splenda” whatsoever, just listing ingredients of dextrose and sucralose. Apparently, it’s the use of the color yellow (but which yellow?) that bought Speedway this lawsuit.

A fairly easy potential compromise would be for Speedway to provide their sucralose sweetener in non-yellow packaging, but I’m guessing Speedway will decide to challenge Splenda’s asserted monopoly over the color yellow for sweeteners. Splenda’s arguably broad trade dress might need to be narrowed to a certain yellow shade (or shades), rather than the entire spectrum of yellow.

Either way, this lawsuit will be interesting to follow…stay tuned for updates.

Heartland Consumer Products LLC v. Speedway, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00322-JMS-TAB
File Date: February 8, 2021
Plaintiff: Heartland Consumer Products LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Holiday W. Banta, Jessa DeGroote, Alice Kelly of ICE MILLER LLP
Defendant: Speedway, LLC
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, False or Misleading Representation of Fact, False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Dilution
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Counterfeit Bongs dominate the February Indiana IP Litigation Docket

01 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Southern District of Indiana, Trade Dress, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Copyright Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Integrity of Copyright Management Information, Photography, Richard Bell, Trade Dress Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Two photography cases, including one from serial filer Richard Bell, and a breach of franchise agreement lawsuit…other than that, the February Indiana IP litigation docket was totally dominated by filings by RooR International. RooR’s defendants are Indiana smokeshops and their alleged sale of counterfeit bongs.

RooR markets itself as “the premier manufacturer of glass water pipes by emphasizing the brand’s unwavering use of quality materials and focusing on scientific principles which facilitate a superior smoking experience.”

As you can see from the screenshot below, RooR International has gone on a recent filing spree to combat the sale of counterfeit products:

Screen Shot 2019-03-01 at 9.18.39 AM.png

RooR’s defendants, small smoke and vape shops from across Indiana, are accused of Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin and Federal Unfair Competition. Heavy stuff.

Sample RooR Complaint

View this document on Scribd

The other non-bong, non-Bell cases involve the breach of a franchise agreement and the unauthorized use of a photograph of a New Year’s Eve fireworks display.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC, BR IP Holder LLC v. Big Scoops, Inc., David M. Glasgow Jr.

View this document on Scribd

Bachner v. USA Halloween Planet Inc.

View this document on Scribd

Counterfeit gages result in trade dress, trademark litigation

17 Thursday Aug 2017

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trade Dress, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, False and Misleading Representations, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Jr., Michael G. Gotsch, Robert L. Miller, Sr., Trade Dress Infringement

The Plaintiff, Dwyer Instruments, is a manufacturer of industrial gages and controls headquartered in Michigan City. Plaintiff has used the registered trademark MAGNEHELIC since 1949.

The Defendants, a California manufacturer and Wal-Mart.com which lists the product, are accused of selling counterfeit gages with identical trade dress tp Plaintiff’s gages and a confusingly similar trademark, MAGRFHELIC.

Dwyer Instruments Inc v. Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 3:17-cv-00636-RLM-MGG
File Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Plaintiff: Dwyer Instruments, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Peter J. Shakula of Wood Phillips
Defendant: Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC, Tasharina Corp.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, False and Misleading Representations, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint: 

View this document on Scribd

ZIG-ZAG looks to smoke out counterfeiters in Indiana

18 Thursday Aug 2016

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Branding, Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trade Dress, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Counterfeiting, False Designation of Origin, Federal Copyright Infringement, Federal Trademark Infringement, Philip P. Simon, Susan L. Collins, Trade Dress Infringement

This is an anti-counterfeiting action against an extensive list of defendants who allegedly manufacture, import and sell counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s ZIG-ZAG cigarette papers in Indiana.

As expected, the counterfeit products are “inferior, cheaper versions sold without any known quality control or authorization.”

Stopping counterfeiters is a difficult task and, as seen here, must often be done on a state-by-state basis.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 7.02.35 AM

North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. et al v. KPC Distributor Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00307-PPS-SLC
File Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Plaintiff:
North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc.; National Tobacco Company, L.P.
Plaintiff Counsel:
 Gregory W. Pottorff, Adam Arceneaux of Ice Miller
Defendant: KPC Distributor Inc. et al.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Copyright Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court:
 Northern District of Indiana
Judge: 
Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

← Older posts

Categories

  • Artists (20)
  • Authors (18)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (25)
  • Business Law (5)
  • Copyright (254)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (4)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (473)
  • Indianapolis (42)
  • Intellectual Property (526)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (464)
  • Musicians (10)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (145)
  • Patent (42)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (53)
  • Southern District of Indiana (270)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (13)
  • Trade Secret (14)
  • Trademark (275)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×