• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Trademark

What a Cease-and-Desist Letter Actually Does (and Does Not Do) in Indiana

17 Thursday Sep 2026

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

cease and desist, Copyright, Indiana, Trademark, USPTO

Most Indiana trademark and copyright fights that end up in the Northern or Southern District started with a letter, not a complaint. That letter is usually called a cease-and-desist. It is also one of the most misunderstood pieces of paper in this practice.

A cease-and-desist letter is a demand. It is not a lawsuit, not an injunction, and not a finding that anyone has infringed anything. The recipient does not have to agree with it. The sender does not have to file a case if the letter is ignored. Both of those facts surprise people.

What the letter actually is

In the trademark and copyright matters this blog follows, a C&D is typically a lawyer’s letter that:

  • identifies the mark or work the sender claims;
  • describes the use the sender objects to;
  • asks the recipient to stop that use by a date; and
  • often asks for written confirmation, an accounting, or destruction of inventory.

Sometimes it attaches a registration certificate. Sometimes it attaches screenshots. Sometimes it is two pages. Sometimes it is twenty. Length is not a substitute for a real claim.

Common-law rights can support a letter just as a federal registration can. An Indiana state trademark registration can support one too. None of those pieces of paper turns the letter into an order.

What it can do

Start a conversation that does not require a filing fee. A lot of disputes end here. The recipient rebrands, takes a listing down, or negotiates a short coexistence deal. No docket number is ever assigned. That is a feature, not a failure.

Put the other side on notice. In copyright cases, notice can matter for willfulness and for statutory damages once a registration is in hand. In trademark cases, notice can matter if the dispute later becomes a willfulness or damages fight. The letter is evidence that someone was told, on a date certain, that a senior user objected.

Create a paper trail. If the matter does go to the Northern or Southern District, the complaint will often recite that counsel sent a letter and “was unable to find a suitable resolution.” That sentence is familiar on this blog because it is familiar in the complaints.

Sometimes freeze a use without a TRO. A marketplace seller, a printer, or a small retailer will often pull a listing when they get a letter they take seriously. Amazon, Shopify, and a local sign shop are not going to litigate your brand for you.

Sometimes stop a USPTO application from sailing through. A well-timed letter can lead to an abandonment, an amendment, or a consent agreement before an opposition is even filed. It can also do the opposite and provoke a declaratory-judgment suit. That is a reason to think before you send.

What it does not do

It does not decide who is right. The USPTO may have already allowed a junior mark. A Secretary of State filing may already be sitting in Indianapolis. Neither office has held a trial. A letter from counsel is not a substitute for one.

It does not give you an injunction. Only a court can order someone to stop. Until then, the recipient can keep using the name, keep selling the print, and keep the website up. Many do.

It does not toll a statute or lock in venue. Sending a letter to a Fort Wayne address does not guarantee the case stays in the Northern District. Silence after a letter does not stop a limitations clock by itself.

It does not require the other side to answer. No rule of civil procedure forces a response to a private letter. Some recipients answer through counsel. Some ignore it. Some send their own letter back. All three happen in Indiana.

It does not replace a copyright registration if you want statutory damages and fees. If the plan is a copyright suit, the registration timing rules still apply. A blistering C&D sent the week after the photo went up does not fix a missing registration.

It is not confidential just because you marked it “CONFIDENTIAL” or “FOR SETTLEMENT ONLY.” Labeling helps in some later arguments. It is not a seal. Assume the letter can show up as an exhibit.

Indiana wrinkles worth knowing

Indiana businesses often hold three different kinds of rights at once: common-law use in a county or two, an Indiana state registration, and a federal application or registration. A letter that treats those as the same thing is sloppy. A state registration is not a nationwide right. A federal registration is not a finding that every local user must fold.

The two Indiana districts see a steady run of cases that recite a C&D and then a filing a few weeks or a few months later – food trucks, chiropractors, lawn-care parts, campus events. The letter was the last attempt at a private fix, not the first exhibit in a war plan. When the letter goes out over a holiday week to an institution that is closed, you can expect the reply to be late and the temperature to rise. That is not a legal doctrine. It is a calendar.

There are also files where the better move is not to send a letter: a pending intent-to-use application you do not want to poke, a counterfeiter you do not want to tip before a seizure motion, or a recipient you expect will race to another courthouse for a declaratory-judgment action. “We sent a C&D” is not a required element of a Lanham Act or Copyright Act complaint.

How to read one if it lands on your desk

Read the whole thing, including the exhibits. Check whether the claimed registration actually covers the goods or services in the letter. Check whether the dates work. Do not take the registration symbol in the letterhead as proof of anything by itself. Then decide, with counsel if the risk is real, whether the use is worth keeping.

A short, accurate reply is often better than a long manifesto. A long manifesto is often better than a social-media thread. Neither is required.

How to write one if you are the sender

Be specific about the mark or the work. Be specific about the use. Do not claim a registration you do not have. Do not use the ® symbol on an unregistered mark – this blog has already covered that mistake. Give a date that a human can meet. Say what you want: stop, rebrand, account, assign a domain, sign a consent. “Demand that you cease and desist all infringement” is not a punch list.

If you are not prepared to file in the Northern or Southern District when the date passes, think hard about sending the letter at all. Recipients can tell the difference between a letter that will be followed and a letter that will not.


Stay tuned for the usual Indiana IP litigation docket notes. This one was just about the letter that so often comes first.

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

BIOCOTE vs. BIOCOAT…are you confused?

11 Friday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Abizer Zanzi, Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Gretchen S. Lund, Litigation Update, Trademark Infringement

BioCote Limited sues BioBond Adhesives for trademark infringement in N.D. Ind. (4:26-cv-00086)

BioCote Limited sued Lafayette adhesives maker BioBond Adhesives, Inc. on August 19, 2026, in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, Case No. 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, Indiana trademark and unfair competition claims, and breach of a brand license over BioBond’s BIOCOAT antimicrobial coatings.

The Complaint (below) is a licensee fight, not a stranger-on-the-internet fight. UK company BioCote owns U.S. Registration No. 5,306,757 for the BIOCOTE logo in Class 2 for antimicrobial powder-coating compositions (issued October 10, 2017; first U.S. sales under the mark pleaded as at least 2013). It licenses the chemistry and the mark to partners who put BIOCOTE on finished goods. BioBond, which makes plant-based adhesives and protective coatings in Lafayette, is pleaded as one of those partners. Under the Brand Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, BioBond took a non-exclusive license to the BIOCOTE mark, agreed the IP stayed with BioCote, and promised it “must not use in its business any other trademark similar to the [BioCote] Mark,” must not apply to register “Biocote [or] any similar word,” and must not do anything that would diminish the registration.

BioBond then launched BioCoat SUP250 and BioCoat SWaE250 – water-based polyurethane and epoxy coatings marketed for food-processing surfaces and “defense against mold, fungi, and other microorganisms” – and, the Complaint says, filed a standard-character U.S. application for BIOCOAT covering anti-mold, anti-fungal, and anti-microbial protective coatings. BioCote says it learned of the filing from a watch notice, understood after discussions that BioBond would drop the mark and the application, then found the application still moving. It opposed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91303474) and now wants the Northern District to stop the use.

The pleaded theory is short: BIOCOTE and BIOCOAT share five of seven letters and, BioCote says, sound the same; the goods are antimicrobial coatings sold into overlapping industrial channels; and the customer was already a licensed BIOCOTE partner, which the Complaint says makes source confusion worse, not better. BioCote seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against BIOCOAT, destruction of marked packaging, refusal or cancellation of the application, damages (including a treble/enhanced-damages request on alleged willfulness), and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

BioCote Limited vs. BioBond Adhesives, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ
File Date: August 19, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: BioCote Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie L. Teaford, H. Jonathan Redway, Nicole M. Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin; Indiana Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Breach of Contract
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Gretchen S. Lund
Referred To: Abizer Zanzi

Complaint:

BioCote Limited ComplaintDownload

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.

UINDY vs. IU INDY…are you confused?

09 Wednesday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Indiana University, Litigation Update, University of Indianapolis

Indianapolis University of Indianapolis sued The Trustees of Indiana University on August 11, 2026, in the Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 1:26-cv-01669-JPH-MKK, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution over IU’s use of “IU INDY” for the former IUPUI campus – a phrase the south-side school says is too close to its federally registered UINDY mark.

The Complaint (below) opens as “an action for infringement of U Indy’s well-known federally registered trademark ‘UINDY.’” UIndy has used UINDY in commerce since 2002 and owns a family of live Principal Register registrations, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,755,827 (Class 41 educational services; first use June 3, 2002; registered August 26, 2003), 3,327,194, 3,756,194 (clothing), 3,865,804, 4,039,095, and 6,969,975. After IU and Purdue unwound IUPUI in 2024, IU began branding the downtown Indianapolis campus as IU INDY – including, contemporaneous reporting notes, on athletic goods – and filed intent-to-register applications for IU INDY, IU INDY and design, and IU INDY JAGUARS (Serial Nos. 98/413,770, 98/413,774, 98/413,777, and 98/414,051), which published on October 22, 2024.

UIndy opposed those applications at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on February 19, 2025 (Opposition No. 91297078). The federal complaint now takes the fight out of the Trademark Office and into the Southern District. As pleaded in the public accounts of the Complaint, the two schools compete for the same students in the same city; UIndy alleges “confusion and deception in the marketplace and diversion of potential students and customers of U Indy to IU,” and says it has already seen mix-ups among students, job applicants, delivery drivers, and FAFSA filers. IU’s media office has declined to comment on the litigation. An answer has not been filed.

UIndy seeks to stop display, distribution, marketing, and promotion under IU INDY, plus damages. Two Indianapolis universities, one transposed pair of letters, one federal trademark docket. Stay tuned for updates.

University of Indianapolis vs. The Trustees of Indianapolis University

Court Case Number: 1:26-cv-01669-JPH-MKK
File Date: August 11, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: University of Indianapolis
Plaintiff Counsel: William J. Barkimer, Daniel Tychonievich of Krieg DeVault LLP
Defendant: The Trustees of Indiana University
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement; Federal Unfair Competition; False Designation of Origin
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Complaint:

University of Indianapolis ComplaintDownload

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.

October 2024 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

01 Friday Nov 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Litigation Update

No-file November is here…will Indiana IP litigators be able to withhold from filing any new lawsuits this month? Time will tell. For now, read on below for updates from October on all pending Indiana trademark and copyright litigation:

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc. (ND, filed 8/31/2021) –  No update this month.

Gabet et al. v. Amazon.com. Inc. et al. (ND, filed 1/20/2022) – If you’re following this lawsuit closely, go check PACER, because there are 35 new entries since last month. Most of it involves Amazon’s Motion for Attorney Fees filed on October 4, 2024.

View this document on Scribd

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel et al (ND, filed 5/18/2022) – No update this month.

Honest Abe Roofing franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al. (SD, filed 9/7/2022) – No update this month. 

The Center for Gestalt Development, Inc. v. Bowman (SD (11/09/2022) – On October 9, 2024, the Court entered a slightly scathing Order against the plaintiff on Defendant Robine’s Motion to Compel. The plaintiff was ordered to provide a privilege log, amend its discovery responses, and also pay some attorney fees. On October 29, 2024, the plaintiff notified the Court of its compliance, but that was immediately challenged by Defendant Robine the following day with an objection.

View this document on Scribd

National College Resources Foundation v. The Strong Friends LLC et al. (ND 5/4/2023) –  No update this month.

Nickel and Dimes Incorporated v. Noah’s Arcade LLC et al (ND 7/25/2023) – No update this month.

Banjo Corporation v. Green Leaf, Inc. (SD 9/29/2023) – A Discovery Conference was held on October 28, 2024 and the parties have 10 days to communicate any outstanding discovery requests.

Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. v. Dr. Permagreen, LLC et al. (ND 10/06/2023) –  On October 24, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, giving the defendants 14 days to supplement their discovery responses.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v. Luxury Mattress & Furniture, LLC (ND 11/09/2023) – No update this month.

Stross v. Homestead Properties, Inc. (SD 11/09/2023) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 11, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 15, 2024.

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al v. CNB Retailers, LLC et al. (ND 2/08/2024) – A Stipulated Consent Injunction Order was entered on October 16, 2024.

View this document on Scribd

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. et al. (SD 2/14/2024) – Answers to Interrogatories were submitted by both Key Bank and Ally Bank, in furtherance of the plaintiff’s pursuit of garnishment.

Sadowski v. Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV (SD 2/21/2024) – No update this month.

Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Company, LLC (SD 3/1/2024) – No update this month.

Rigsby v. All Seasons Roofing (ND 3/14/2024) – No update this month. 

Guangzhou Shima Decoration Materials Co., Ltd v. Shenzhen Ruimingxiang Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (SD 4/11/2024) – No update this month.

Howarth v. My Sauna World LLC (SD (4/29/2024) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 22, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 23, 2024.

Peugh et al. v. Nadler et al. (SD 5/3/2024) – Dismissal papers are due by November 7, 2024.

NutraMax Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Abumayyaleh Bros LLC et al. (SD 6/20/2024) – On October 17, 2024, the plaintiff advised the court of ongoing settlement negotiations and a further update will be provided by November 18, 2024.

Miller v. Empire News LLC (SD 6/26/2024) – No update this month.

LifeWise, Inc. v. Parrish (ND 7/2/2024) – The plaintiff has been granted until November 5, 2024 to file a reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Forest River, Inc. v. Sharpline Converting, Inc. (ND 7/2/2024) – A Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is scheduled on November 19, 2024.

AWGI, LLC et al. v. Atlas Mover Group LLC et al. (SD 7/15/2024) – Clerk’s Entry of Default was entered on October 7, 2024. A Motion for Default Judgment and supporting Brief were filed on October 15, 2024.

Pepy v. Angie’s Lists, Inc. d/b/a Angi (SD 7/18/2024) – The plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on October 17, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on October 22, 2024.

Hiker Industries, LLC v. Hyk Outdoors LLC (SD 8/5/2024) – The lawsuit has been settled and dismissal papers are due by December 16, 2024.

My Market LLC v. Batth Markets Inc. et al. (SD 8/6/2024) – The Complaint was served as of October 7, 2024.

Legacy Chiropractic, LLC v. Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC (ND 8/9/2024) – The defendant filed its Answer on October 2, 2024. A Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is scheduled on November 26, 2024.

View this document on Scribd

BCW Diversified, Inc. v. Ultra Pro International, LLC (SD 9/30/2024) – Waiver of service was executed on October 29, 2024. Kathryn Kent has filed an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.

Jumpstart Communications LLC v. Jumper et al. (ND 10/22/2024) – No update yet.

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC et al. (SD 1o/25/2024) – No update yet.

Delta Faucet Company v. Bundrick et al. (SD 10/28/2024) – No update yet.

September 2024 Updates

August 2024 Updates – July 2024 Updates – June 2024 Updates – May 2024 Updates

April 2024 Updates – March 2024 Updates – February 2024 Updates – January 2024 Updates

December 2023 Updates – December 2022 Updates –  December 2021 Updates

Delta Faucet Company sues Amazon Counterfeiters in Southern District of Indiana

01 Friday Nov 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Kellie M. Barr, Richard L. Young

Delta Faucet Company is once again pursuing counterfeit faucet sellers from Amazon in the Southern District of Indiana. The Complaint (below), always an enjoyable read, discusses how a company’s trademarks are impacted by unauthorized sellers and their negative online reviews. The counterfeiter defendants typically don’t make an appearance in these lawsuits and thus it usually proceeds right to default judgment. The last Delta counterfeiter sued in Indiana earned himself a damages award of $5.4 million and a permanent injunction, so the “head in the sand” strategy is a really bad one. Let’s wait and see if this case is handled any differently.

Stay tuned for updates.

Delta Faucet Company v. Bundrick et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01901-RLY-KMB
File Date: October 28, 2024
Plaintiff: Delta Faucet Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendants: Justin Bundrick, Andrew Bundrick, John Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Kellie M. Barr

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

← Older posts

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (329)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (605)
  • Indianapolis (52)
  • Intellectual Property (666)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (598)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (216)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (370)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (366)
  • 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.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 81 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...