• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Trade Dress

Mid-October 2021 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

15 Friday Oct 2021

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

Litigation Update

Fall is here! Only two (one trademark, one copyright) lawsuits were filed in Indiana in the last month, but there’s been plenty of action in the existing cases. Dave Chappelle’s “failed comedian” plaintiff has returned with Proof of Service and a Motion for Default Judgment. One plaintiff has filed a Motion for Contempt against a non-responsive defendant after continued infringement following a Default Judgment. Another trademark plaintiff faces a Motion to Dismiss their federal claims based on a lack of interstate commerce. Interesting stuff ahead, so read on and stay tuned for next month’s updates.

Noble Romans, Inc. v. Gateway Triangle Corp. et al. (SD, filed 2/5/2021) – The Defendants have been granted until November 11, 2021 to file their response to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Watch Communications v. Jarman et al. (SD, filed 3/8/2021) – The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on October 12, 2021.

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

ABI Attachments, Inc. v. Kiser Arena Specialists, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 4/12/2021) – This lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2021 via a joint motion.

Triple LLL Truck Repair, Inc. v. Triple LLL, Inc. et al. (ND, filed 4/26/2021) – No update this month.

Energy Beverages LLC v. Full Throttle Automotive LLC (SD, filed 5/19/2021) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on September 8, 2021 and simply awaits formal dismissal by the Court. 

Egglife Foods, Inc. v. Crepini, LLC (ND, filed 5/28/2021) – The Defendant’s Answer was filed on October 12, 2021.

View this document on Scribd

Gatewood v. Webber Chappelle (ND, filed 6/4/2021) – This case looked set for a dismissal based on failure to serve process but the Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service on September 28, 2021 and filed a Motion for Default Judgment on October 5, 2021. We now at least have a better idea what the “joke” was that Dave Chappelle allegedly “stole”…it’s at minute mark 21:23 until 22:15 in Chappelle’s “Heart of Texas” comedy special. The original Complaint said the stolen joke was “exactly one minute” so there is some discrepancy between the Plaintiff’s documents.

View this document on Scribd

Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC v. Lynn Retails, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 6/4/2021) – No update this month.

Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. AMI Stores Management, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 6/6/2021) – No update this month.

Valqari LLC v. Dronedek Corporation et al. (SD, filed 6/16/2021) – The parties have reported settlement. The Court has worded the Plaintiff to file dismissal documents by October 29, 2021.

Fitzgerald et al. v. Murray et al. (SD, filed 6/18/2021) – The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses on September 17, 2021 and the Defendant Murray filed a Motion to Strike the following day. A default judgment was entered against the Defendant Beacon Books on October 1, 2021 for failure to respond. A Reply for the Motion to Compel was filed by Plaintiff on October 4, 2021 and the Defendants filed their Answer to Interrogatories on October 4, 2021.

View this document on Scribd

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

Poulsen Roser A/S v. Gardens Alive, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 7/14/2021) – The parties have a telephone status conference set for November 15, 2021.

Haehl v. Dr. Brite, LLC (SD, filed 7/21/2021) – The Defendant filed an Answer on September 28, 2021. Defense counsel is John R. Terpstra and Anna Mandula of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

View this document on Scribd

AWGI, LLC et al. v. CLD Trucking Co. d/b/a Atlas Moving Systems AMS (SD, filed 7/22/2021) – The Defendant failed to appear for a telephonic default judgment hearing on September 28, 2021 and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff. The default judgment apparently did not deter the Defendant from continuing its infringing activities, and a Motion for Contempt was filed by the Plaintiff on October 13, 2021.

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

Berman v. Auralex Acoustics, Inc. (SD, filed 7/22/2021) – Despite a purported settlement, dismissal documents were not filed by the Court’s deadline of October 8, 2021.

RE/MAX, LLC et al. v. Dulin et al. (SD, filed 8/24/2021) – An Amended Complaint was filed on September 16, 2021. No other updates.

Bubbles Ice Cream Parlor & Pie Shoppe, Inc. v. Scoops & Sweet Bubbles, LLC (ND, filed 8/25/2021) – The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim (based on lack of interstate commerce) and lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc. (ND, filed 8/31/2021) – An Answer was filed on September 21, 2021 and the following Amended Answer was filed on October 12, 2021. A Pretrial Conference is scheduled for November 3, 2021 before the Court. (Could this signal an end to almost two years of telephonic court conferences?)

View this document on Scribd

Thomas v. ooShirts, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 9/24/2021) – No update yet.

Edutainment Live, LLC v. Video Game Palooza et al. (SD, filed 10/11/2021) – No update yet.

September 2021 Updates

August 2021 Updates

July 2021 Updates

June 2021 Updates

May 2021 Updates

April 2021 Updates

Family-owned Hardware Store in Corydon, Indiana sued by Sears Hometown for Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference

08 Tuesday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Debra McVicker Lynch, Jane Magnus-Stinson, Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Unfair Competition

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit is Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC (“SAHS”), the licensor of Sears Hometown stores, which offer SAHS’s merchandise, such as major home appliances, for sale to the public on consignment from SAHS. For over 25 years, SAHS licensed a Sears Hometown store in Corydon, Indiana through dealership agreements with a series of independent dealers.

The Defendants are accused of using “their personal relationships with SAHS’s former dealer to block SAHS’s access to the market and open their own store, “Schneider’s Hometown,” at the same location as the former Sears Hometown store. Defendants are now unfairly trading off SAHS’s name and goodwill in the Corydon market.”

The Complaint (below) details the history between the original Corydon SAHS store and the Defendants, including the actions of the Defendants in abandoning their own dealer agreement.

The Defendants are also accused of using a sign designed to be confusingly similar to the sign used to designate a Sears Hometown store, including using the same font and color scheme. The interior of the Defendants’ store allegedly uses the same trade dress and fixtures used in SAHS’s branding programs, including, but not limited to, the paint colors and trim and vinyl plank wood flooring. The Defendants also continue to use the same phone number from the SAHS store.

Stay tuned for updates.

Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC v. Lynn Retail, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 4:21-cv-00091-JMS-DML
File Date: Friday, June 4, 2021
Plaintiff: Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael W. Oyler of Furman Nilsen & Oyler, PLLC, Fredric A. Cohen, Allison R. Grow, Charles J. Hoover of Cheng Cohen LLC
Defendant: Lynn Retail, Inc., Jerry Schneider, Laura Schneider
Cause: Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Egg White Wraps are apparently a thing, and now they have a Trade Dress Lawsuit

01 Tuesday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Jon E. DeGuilio, Michael G. Gotsch, Trade Dress Infringement

Update 6/2/2021: I went to the grocery store today searching for Egg White Wraps and didn’t find any. Is this really a thing?

Here’s a fairly interesting trade dress lawsuit involving a food product I didn’t even know existed…egg white wraps. Apparently, egg white wraps were the “number one new product in dairy departments…in 2020” (see Complaint below). It begs the question, how many other new dairy products were released in 2020? Dairy product connoisseurs, please educate me in the comments below.

As general information, “trade dress” comprises the characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that signify the source of the product to consumers. However, if trade dress is “functional,” meaning the characteristics are “essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article,” it cannot serve as a trademark. See TMEP 1202.02(a).

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit, Egglife, is accusing the Defendant, Crepini, of adopting packaging that is too similar to their own egg white wrap packaging.

Here are the specific elements that the Plaintiff consider to be their own protectable trade dress:

a. Interwoven and overlapping shapes with rounded rather than squared edges that weave in and out of the front of the package

b. The interwoven and overlapping shapes with rounded rather than squared edges are comprised of different, yellow-based colors

c. Transparent center window with overlaid graphics

d. Prominent display of “egg white wraps” in the center of the transparent window in the center of the front of the package

e. Lowercase “egglife”brand straight across the upper quarter of the front of the package

f. Smaller arched text centered over the “egglife” brand near the top of the front of the package

g. All capitalized“KEEP REFRIGERATED” text at bottom of the front of the package

h. Lowercase “egglife”brand straight across the upper quarter of the front of the package

i. Smaller arched text centered over the “egglife” brand near the top of the front of the package

j. All capitalized “KEEP REFRIGERATED” text at bottom of the front of the package

As mentioned above, I’m certainly no expert on egg white wrap packaging, but I have been in a grocery store before, and some/most of the above characteristics seem pretty standard for all types of food products. Food marketers please weigh in below, but many of these characteristics seem almost necessary, i.e. functional, given the limited packaging size for a small food product.

However, the Complaint highlights frequent changes to the Defendant’s packaging from early 2018 up to the 2019 rebrand to the current allegedly infringing packaging, of which the Defendant’s packaging now supposedly copies the characteristics of Plaintiff’s packaging:

a. Interwoven and overlapping shapes with rounded rather than squared edges
b. The interwoven and overlapping shapes with rounded rather than squared edges are comprised of nearly identical yellow-based colors
c. Transparent center window with overlaid graphics
d. Lower case brand straight across the upper quarter of the packaging
e. Smaller arched text centered over the top of the brand near the top of the packaging
f. Abandoned trademarked EGG THINS in favor of “egg wraps”
g. Abandoned the long-used CREPINI Iand crown design trademark in favor of lowercase font across the top of the packaging
h. Added “Keep Refrigerated” messaging in all capital letters to the bottom of the packaging

As an unsophisticated egg white wrap consumer, both packagings frankly appear to me just like many other packagings in a grocery store. I’m reminded of flour tortilla packaging. Due in large part to FDA labeling requirements, food producers/marketers have to pack a lot of functional information about a product into a very small space. The use of the colors yellow and white in connection with an egg product seem to be almost a requisite. A transparent center window allowing a consumer to examine the food product seems highly necessary.

The Complaint does include some very limited evidence of instances of actual confusion by Costco consumers posting on Facebook. Considering the type of people that feel a need to post on social media about their Costco purchases, I’m not sure whether I’d consider those to be “significant” instances of confusion. However, they do exist and add an extra wrinkle to the lawsuit and Crepini’s possible defenses and responsibility to avoid consumer confusion.

This trade dress lawsuit will be interesting to follow. Stay tuned for updates.

Egglife Foods, Inc. v. Crepini, LLC

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00388
File Date: Friday, May 28, 2021
Plaintiff: Egglife Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, David R. Merritt of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Crepini, LLC
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Monster Energy sues Fitness Equipment Company over Claw Icon

28 Friday May 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

False Designation of Origin, Federal Dilution, Joshua P. Kolar, Philip P. Simon, State Unfair Competition, Trade Dress Infringement, Trademark Infringement

This is the second lawsuit filed by an energy drink company in a week!

The Plaintiff, Monster Energy Company, brings this lawsuit after several years of unsuccessful direct communications with the Defendant attempting to seek voluntary compliance with their asserted trademark rights.

Anybody who’s been to a gas station or watched the X Games will recognize the Monster “Claw Icon” logo, an “M-shaped claw design with jagged or irregular contours designed to evoke a claw having torn through the can or other material.” The Complaint (below) claims that Monster brand drinks are the best-selling energy drink in the United States. In October 2020, Monster was named the 4th Most Marketed Brand in Sports.

The Defendant, Bear KompleX, sells fitness equipment such as hand grips, weight belts, compression sleeves, and weight belts. They utilize a “Bear Claw” logo (not the donut) which looks like a slash (not the rocker) from a five-fingered bear paw. Bear KompleX’s logo often appears in various colors, including sometimes green and black.

Monster first contacted Bear KompleX in August 2019 demanding that they stop selling a “Grip, Calicure, & Doc Spartan Monster Bundle.” Later that month, Monster sent another letter warning Bear KompleX not to use a green claw mark. The Defendant apparently responded over the subsequent year by expanding its product offerings bearing a green claw mark, seemingly taunting Monster to take legal action.

That legal action has now been taken by Monster, and I’ll be looking forward to seeing Bear KompleX’s Answer. The Complaint asserts only a likelihood of confusion and no actual instances of confusion, so we can expect the Defendant to argue against any likelihood of confusion. They can point to differences between the logos, such as the Bear KompleX logo having five slashes, versus Monster’s three, and their bear claw facing upward rather than downward.

Stay tuned for updates.

Monster Energy Company v. R&R Medical, LLC d/b/a Bear KompleX

Case Number: 2:21-cv-00179-PPS-JPK
File Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Plaintiff: Monster Energy Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: James W. Riley, Jr., Jaclyn M. Flint of Riley Bennett Egloff LLP
Defendant: R&R Medical d/b/a Bear KompleX
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Dilution, State Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Energy Drink Company Sues Automotive Repair Company for Trademark Infringement

24 Monday May 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Matthew P. Brookman, Richard L. Young, Trade Dress Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Evansville, Indiana-based Full Throttle Automotive, an auto repair shop, is being sued for trademark infringement by Energy Beverages, producer of Full Throttle energy drinks. The Complaint (below) highlights Energy Beverages’ long history of advertising in auto racing, including being the title sponsor of the National Hot Rod Association’s primary drag racing event.

The auto repair shop has also sponsored vehicles in motorsport events. Energy Beverages sent a cease-and-desist letter in October 2020, but Full Throttle Automotive has refused to discontinue use of its trademark.

Stay tuned for the Answer in the next few weeks, when we’ll likely find out how long Full Throttle Automotive has been using their “Full Throttle” name. They posted their current name and logo on Facebook back in 2014, and it’s likely they were using their name even before that, so they may have a strong acquiescence or laches defense based on many years of inaction from Energy Beverages.

A possible outcome could be a compromise whereby Full Throttle Automotive agrees not to sponsor NHRA events, presumably the most likely source of consumer confusion.

Energy Beverages LLC v. Full Throttle Automotive LLC

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00081-RLY-MPB
File Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Plaintiff: Energy Beverages LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: James W. Riley, Jr., Jaclyn M. Flint of Riley Bennett Egloff LLP
Defendant: Full Throttle Automotive LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Artists (21)
  • Authors (19)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (27)
  • Business Law (8)
  • Copyright (289)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (537)
  • Indianapolis (45)
  • Intellectual Property (593)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (529)
  • Musicians (12)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (178)
  • Patent (43)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (55)
  • Southern District of Indiana (320)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (24)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (317)
  • 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.

  • Follow Following
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 75 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...