Category Archives: Trademark

Sign Company sues Former Employee for Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

18 Monday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Defendant, a former employee of Plaintiff, is alleged to use have used Plaintiff’s company resources to benefit his own competing business. The Complaint (below) describes in detail (truly…the Complaint goes up to Exhibit JJJ) how Defendant apparently falsely claimed credit for Plaintiff’s past achievements and client relationships.

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 7.44.39 AM

Landmark Signs Inc v. I C U Outdoor Advertising LLC et al

Court Case Number: 2:16-cv-00128-RLM-JEM
File Date: Friday, April 15, 2016
Plaintiff: Landmark Signs Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Cori A. Mathis of Hilbrich Cunningham Dobosz Vinovich & Sandoval, LLC
Defendant: I C U Advertising LLC, Lawrence M. Yurko
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, State Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship, Tortious Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage, Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices, Federal Trademark Infringement, State Trademark Infringement, Illinois Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – NETZSCH PREMIER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. PHLER FEINMAHLTECHNIK GMBH et al

11 Monday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Defendant is alleged to be involved in the advertising, promotion, and sale of counterfeit mixers, dispersers, mills, and related products.

Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 9.44.51 AM

NETZSCH PREMIER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. PHLER FEINMAHLTECHNIK GMBH et al

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00781-WTL-MPB
File Date: Friday, April 8, 2016
Plaintiff: NETZSCH PREMIER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jeffrey Kose, Patrick F.X. Fitzpatrick, Jr. of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Fronoff LLP
Defendant: PHLER FEINMAHLTECHNIK GMBH et al
Cause: Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Description, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Matthew P. Bookman

Complaint:

 

Coach sues Knox, Indiana Convenience Store over Counterfeit Purses

05 Tuesday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Defendants in this lawsuit, the owners of a convenience store located in Knox, Indiana, are accused of selling counterfeit Coach merchandise. The counterfeit purses were observed for sale in the store on multiple occasions by a Coach investigator and Homeland Security Investigations officer.

Selling counterfeit merchandise is, not surprisingly, a big no-no and Coach takes its intellectual property very seriously, hence this lawsuit containing trademark, copyright and trade dress claims.

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 8.38.21 AM

Coach, Inc. et al v. Zip Thru Mart et al

Court Case Number: 3:2016-cv-00209-JD-CAN
File Date: Monday, April 4, 2016
Plaintiff: Coach, Inc., Coach Services, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: P. Russell Pardew of Locke Lord LLP
Defendant: Zip Thru Mart, Charles Estok, Sr., Janice Estok
Cause: Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Trademark Dilution, Copyright Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Complaint:

Narconon Rehab Centers sued by Certification Board for Trademark Infringement and Civil Conspiracy

28 Monday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff, the National Association of Forensic Counselors, is a Certification Board providing nationally accredited certifications for professionals working with criminal offenders in the fields of criminal justice, corrections, addictions and mental health.

Defendants (a long list, including numerous Narconon rehab centers and the Church of Scientology, is listed in the Complaint below) are alleged to have falsely claimed certification by Plaintiff. The Complaint includes a “Civil Conspiracy” claim, alleging that there was a common plan by all Defendants to intentionally falsely claim the certifications.

Screen Shot 2016-03-28 at 7.13.53 AM

National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. et al v. Narconon International et al

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00101-JD-SLC
File Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016
Plaintiff: National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc., American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors Inc. d/b/a American College of Certified Forensic Counselors
Plaintiff Counsel: Jessica Wegg of Saeed & Little, LLP
Defendant: Narconon International et al (see Complaint for full list of Defendants)
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Civil Conspiracy
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

The Great American Bagel files Trademark Lawsuit over Rearranged Signage

25 Friday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I’ll let the two trademarks at issue here speak for themselves – THE GREAT AMERICAN BAGEL (stylized) vs. THE GREAT AMERICAN EAGLE (nearly identically stylized). Check out the comparison images from the Complaint:

Screen Shot 2016-03-25 at 7.30.10 AM

The remarkable similarity is, not surprisingly, no coincidence. Defendant obtained an old sign previously used by Plaintiff and apparently opted to save money by just rearranging a few letters and calling his gas station/convenience store “The Great American Eagle”.

As Defendants’ convenience store sells food products, Plaintiff has alleged consumer confusion and is seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Stay tuned for updates.

The Great American Bagel Enterprises, Inc. v. United HBA Corporation et al

Court Case Number:3:16-cv-00038-RLY-MPB
File Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016
Plaintiff: The Great American Bagel Enterprises Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stacy K. Newton of Jackson Kelly PLLC
Defendant: United HBA Corporation and Harbhajan Singh, d/b/a The Great American Eagle
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Unfair Competition, Trade Name Infringement, Passing Off, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Bookman

Complaint:

Can “SQUARE DONUTS” be a trademark for square-shaped donuts?

24 Thursday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

I donut know. But this lawsuit should give us the answer.

First off, I like when complaints have a nice succinct Nature of the Action section at the beginning. This one sums up the lawsuit well:

“Family Express seeks a declaration that its use of the name “SQUARE DONUTS” in association with its sale of square-shaped donuts at Family Express convenience stores does not infringe Defendant’s asserted trademark rights in “SQUARE DONUTS.”

There is some background. Square Donuts has been selling donuts of all shapes and sizes, including square-shaped, in central Indiana since 1965.

Family Express, a purveyor of convenience stores throughout northern Indiana, started selling square-shaped donuts in 2005, calling them, simply enough, “Square Donuts.”

The parties have been arguing since 2006 when Square Donuts first sent a cease and desist demand to Family Express over the use of the “Square Donuts” trademark. Since that time, Family Express has maintained that “SQUARE DONUTS” was merely descriptive of square-shaped donuts and, therefore, Square Donuts did not and could not assert exclusive rights to use the name “SQUARE DONUTS.”

Apparently 10 years of arguing was the limit for Family Express (and they really don’t want to give their donuts another name, like “Square Doughnuts”), thus leading to this action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and cancellation of Square Donuts’ federal and state trademark registrations.

Both parties will want a final resolution so this litigation could go the distance. Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 8.15.14 AM

Family Express Corporation v. Square Donuts Inc.

Court Case Number: 2:16-cv-00103-TLS-JEM
File Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Plaintiff: Family Express Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: P. Stephen Fardy, Jonna McGinley Reilly of Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP
Defendant: Square Donuts Inc.
Cause: Declaration of Non-Infringement, Cancellation
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Sweetwater Sound v. Hello Music

22 Tuesday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Plaintiff, an Indiana music instrument and audio equipment retailer, alleges that Defendant developed and published a website utilizing content from Plaintiff’s site (product images, descriptions, etc.).

The Complaint includes claims of both copyright and trademark infringement.

Sweetwater Sound Inc v. Hello Music LLC

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-00093
File Date: Friday, March 18, 2016
Plaintiff: Sweetwater Sound Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Blake Hike, Jacque R. Wilson, Eric M. Blume of Carson Boxberger LLP
Defendant: Hello Music, LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Trademark Dilution, Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Oak Motors, Inc. (Indiana) v. Oak Motors, Inc. (California)

21 Monday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff has been operating as “Oak Motors” since 1985, buying and selling automobiles and providing financial services related to the purchase and sale or automobiles. Plaintiff has five primary physical locations and also advertises via its website.

Defendant, a California company providing similar services, began operating as “Oak Motors” in February 2014. Plaintiff first learned of Defendant’s adoption of the name in March 2015 and sent a cease-and-desist letter citing its prior rights and federal registration. Defendant allegedly first agreed to discontinue use of the “Oak Motors” mark but did not follow through and continues to use the trademark (and similar domain names), hence this lawsuit.

Oak Motors, Inc. (Indiana) v. Oak Motors, Inc. (California)

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00595-JMS-MJD
File Date: March 16, 2016
Plaintiff: Oak Motors, Inc. (Indiana)
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Zach Gordon of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: Oak Motors, Inc. (California)
Cause: False Designation of Origin, False Description, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting, Declaratory Judgment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Hoverboard Maker Swagway Sued by UL for Trademark Counterfeiting

19 Friday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

If you live anywhere near an electrical outlet (meaning all of you except those few remaining readers of the Indiana IP Zine), you’ve likely seen the Plaintiff’s trademark.

Plaintiff’s UL Certification Marks appear on “billions of household, consumer, commercial, and industrial products including refrigeration equipment, lighting products, cable, wiring, building materials, life safety vests, electric signs, batteries and power packs for computers and consumer electronics, traffic signals, sprinklers, and cash registers.”

The “UL” mark certifies that the product has been tested, inspected and satisfies applicable safety standards. Turn over whatever electrical device is closest and the “UL” probably is on there somewhere. (If not, back away slowly…) 

Defendant makes and sells the explosively popular Swagway hoverboard. Despite having never been tested nor inspected by UL, the Swagway product “allegedly used a mark that is identical to or substantially indistinguishable from the UL Certification Marks to falsely suggest that their Swagway hoverboard products have been tested, inspected, and certified by Plaintiff.”

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 6.13.13 AM

Further claims by Defendant’s CEO that the product was UL-certified along with significant safety concerns about the product, detailed in the Complaint below, led to this lawsuit.

UL LLC v. Swagway, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00075-RLM-CAN
File Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Plaintiff: UL LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Thomas F. Waggoner of Straub, Seamen & Allen, P.C.
Defendant: Swagway, LLC, Jianqing “Johnny” Zhu
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Complaint:

Indiana publication Rough Notes sues over “plaque” solicitations

09 Tuesday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Most professionals will be familiar with the type of solicitation involved in this lawsuit.

Defendant, based in Connecticut, sells customized plaques for people and companies that have been featured in newspapers or magazines. Defendant promotes its product by directly emailing (repeatedly) the individuals featured in the magazine/newspaper with a solicitation to purchase a customized plaque featuring the article. (See examples in the photo and Exhibit C below.) Defendant’s products consist of a scanned copy of the article and publication’s title inserted into an acrylic, wood or aluminum frame. Defendant has allegedly sold over 200,000 plaques.

Plaintiff, a long-standing Indiana publication focused on insurance agents, is one target of Defendant’s activities. Notably, Plaintiff also provides its own free high-quality reprint plaques to individuals profiled in its magazine. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendant based on the unauthorized use of its trademark and copyrighted materials, among other claims.

Screen Shot 2016-02-09 at 11.06.34 AM

The Rough Notes Company, Inc. v. That’s Great News, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-00319
File Date: Monday, February 8, 2016
Plaintiff: The Rough Notes Company, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: David J. Carr, Paul C. Sweeney, Jana E. Harris of Ice Miller LLP
Defendant: That’s Great News, LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Exhibit C (Sample e-mail solicitations):