• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Trademark

Mid-March Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

15 Monday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Another month come and gone with just a few developments in Indiana copyright and trademark lawsuits. Some interesting cases were filed this month that should have an update next month.

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. v. Sullivan (SD, 1/18/2021) – On 3/10/21, the Defendant was granted another extension to file their Answer until 3/24/2021.

Schnebelt v. Anglotopia, LLC (ND, filed 1/18/2021) – On 3/10/21, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement indicating that “The parties have reached a settlement in principle. Plaintiff will filed a notice of dismissal by May 28, 2021.” So this lawsuit is basically over, likely just pending full payment from Defendant to Plaintiff.

Noble Romans, Inc. v. Gateway Triangle Corp. et al. (SD, filed 2/5/2021) – The Defendants have filed an Answer and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (see below). The Answer is almost entirely just general denials but does include Counterclaims (starting at page 21) that tell some of the Defendants’ side of the story. Allegedly, Noble Roman’s was attempting to use a few minor protocol breaches to force the Defendants’ into signing a 4-year lease agreement. The Counterclaims also allege abusive litigation practices and abuse of process. The Defendants are asking for dismissal of the Complaint, damages against the Plaintiffs, and attorneys’ fees.

Defense counsel are Ronald J. Waicukauski and Carol Nemeth Joven of Price Waicukauski Joven & Catlin, LLC.

Answer:

View this document on Scribd

The Motion to Dismiss addresses Noble Roman’s failure to make factual allegations of any specific wrongful conduct. If, per the Defendants’ Counterclaims, Noble Roman’s wanted a protracted legal battle, this is the first opportunity for it to spend some serious legal money defending deficiencies in the Complaint.

It should be noted that the original Noble Roman’s counsel who filed the Complaint is not among the team currently litigating the case, who it turns out might be on cleanup duty.

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim:

View this document on Scribd

Heartland Consumer Products LLC v. Speedway, LLC (SD, filed 2/5/2021) – No update yet

Indianapolis Bouldering, LLC v. BP Holdings Co. LLC et al. (SD, filed 2/11/2021) – No update yet

Watch Communications v. Jarman et al. (SD, filed 3/8/2021) – No update yet

La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC v. Lopez et al. (SD, filed 3/9/2021) – No update yet

La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC v. Galan et al. (ND, filed 3/9/2021) – No update yet

LA MICHOACANA Grocery Trademark War Expands into Indiana

10 Wednesday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, John E. Martin, Philip P. Simon, Tanya Walton Pratt, Tim A. Baker, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment

One company’s efforts to expand its LA MICHOACANA MEAT MARKET brand from meat markets to grocery stores has moved into Indiana.

The Plaintiff, La Michoacana Meat Market, owns several federal trademark registrations for LA MICHOACANA MEAT MARKET for “Retail meat market stores.”

Seeking to claim undeniably broader protection over “LA MICHOACANA” in connection with grocery stores, the Plaintiff has brought numerous lawsuits over the last few years against small grocers using the term “Michoacana” (or some variation) in their name. Two new Indiana lawsuits are the 6th and 7th filed by La Michoacana against small grocers just this year.

“La Michoacana,” is a common term meaning someone or something from the state of Michoacán in western Mexico. Like an Iowan is from Iowa, or a Californian is from California (but not like a Hoosier is from Indiana). It is apparently a very popular term when naming “Mexican-themed grocery stores,” as evidenced by these lawsuits.

Due to the Defendants’ respective locations, one lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Indiana and the other in the Northern District of Indiana. It will be interesting to track the two lawsuits side-by-side to see whether they reveal any significant differences between the Northern and Southern District.

Plaintiff’s Registered MarkLA MICHOACANA MEAT MARKET for “Retail meat market stores” 
Northern District Defendant’s MarkCARNICERIA Y FRUTERIA LA MICHOACANA for a “Mexican-themed grocery store”
Southern District Defendant’s MarkSUPER MERCADO JIREH POLLO MICHOACANO for a “Mexican-themed grocery store”

Between the two, I predict more difficulties for the Northern District Defendant. For some reason, the Northern District Defendant includes a link to the Plaintiff’s website on its Facebook page, which could be interpreted as evidence of intent to confuse or deceive. However, it’s not apparent from the Complaint (below) who added the link on the Facebook page, as it could be an incorrect Facebook-generated link or third-party edit.

Via this Google Maps image, the Northern District Defendant uses “La Michoacana” more prominently than the other literal elements of their brand (“Carniceria Y Fruteria”) on consumer-facing signage, which strengthens the Plaintiff’s argument for likelihood of consumer confusion.

Compare that to the signage of the Southern District Defendant, which uses the allegedly infringing term less prominently, and with a different spelling:

Further, the services seem different between the Northern and Southern District defendants, whereas the Northern District’s signage specifically advertises the sale of meats. Rather, the Southern District Defendant is a “tienda,” a small neighborhood grocery shop, different than a “retail meat market store.”

Perhaps in recognition of the possible narrow application of their “Retail meat market stores” description, La Michoacana has recently filed an additional federal trademark application for LA MICHOACANA SUPERMARKET for “Retail grocery stores.” That trademark application will be published for opposition on March 30, 2021, and might face challenges from among La Michoacana’s growing list of defendants.

The reality is that a single small grocery owner won’t want to spend much money defending their store name in federal court and will likely just choose to change the name, which the Plaintiff undoubtedly has considered. Buying new signage simply costs less than defending a federal lawsuit. Depending on how long each Defendant has been using their respective name, they may have a good acquiescence or laches defense.

Stay tuned for updates.

Sidenote: The LA MICHOACANA brand has also been the subject of a separate, but equally interesting, trademark dispute in connection with fruit popsicles.

La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC v. Lopez et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00563-TWP-TAB
File Date: March 9, 2021
Plaintiff: La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Ann O’Connor McCready, Neil R. Peluchette of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: Josue Lopez, Supermercado Jireh LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC v. Galan et al.

Court Case Number: 2:21-cv-00087
File Date: March 9, 2021
Plaintiff: La Michoacana Meat Market TM Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Ann O’Connor McCready of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Ruth M. Willars of Monty & Ramirez LLP (pro hac vice)
Defendant: Cacimiro Galan, Carniceria y Fruteria La Morenita LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Mid-February Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

18 Thursday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Here are some quick updates on the IP litigation filed in Indiana so far in 2021. The amount of filings are still far below pre-pandemic numbers, but there are a few interesting cases to follow.

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. v. Sullivan (SD, 1/18/2021) – The parties have agreed to a 28-day extension (until March 10, 2021) for Defendant to respond. This is often an indication that settlement talks are taking place.

View this document on Scribd

Schnebelt v. Anglotopia, LLC (ND, filed 1/18/2021) – The Defendant filed an Answer as pro se on 2/11/2021, but the Answer was struck by the Court one day later, as limited liability companies (which the Defendant is) must be represented by counsel.

View this document on Scribd

Noble Romans, Inc. v. Gateway Triangle Corp. et al. (SD, filed 2/5/2021) – Plaintiff’s counsel filed their Appearances on 2/11/2021, nothing else to report

Heartland Consumer Products LLC v. Speedway, LLC (SD, filed 2/5/2021) – No update yet

Indianapolis Bouldering, LLC v. BP Holdings Co. LLC et al. (SD, filed 2/11/2021) – No update yet

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

Noble Roman’s sues Ex-Franchisees for Trademark Infringement, Conversion, Theft

08 Monday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Franchise Agreement, Conversion under Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3, James Patrick Hanlon, Theft under Indiana Code §35-43-4-2, Tim A. Baker, Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment

The Defendants in this lawsuit are allegedly ex-franchisees of Noble’s Romans, selling gas station pizza from numerous “Luke” gas stations across Northern Indiana.

The Defendants are alleged to have continued utilizing Noble Roman’s intellectual property to advertise and sell Noble Roman’s-branded products and services after termination of their franchise agreement. Further, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants sold unauthorized “Noble Roman’s” products from at least one non-franchised location (see Complaint below, Section 22), but that location is not specifically identified.

The lawsuit was originally filed by Noble Roman’s counsel in Marion County Superior Court in October 2020 but has now been removed to the Southern District of Indiana.

There are often widely-conflicting viewpoints when such franchise arrangements go south, so stay tuned for the Defendant’s Answer and their side of this story.

Noble Roman’s Inc. v. Gateway Triangle Corp. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00407-JPH-TAB
File Date: February 5, 2021 (via Notice of Removal)
Plaintiff: Noble Romans, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: P. Adam Davis, Esquire of Davis & Sarbinoff, LLC
Defendant: Gateway Triangle Corp., 7405 Indy Corp., 850 Indy Corp., Northlake Marketing LLC, Thomas M. Collins II
Cause: Conversion under Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3, Theft under Indiana Code §35-43-4-2, Breach of Franchise Agreement, Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (334)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (35)
  • Indiana (610)
  • Indianapolis (52)
  • Intellectual Property (674)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (603)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (218)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (372)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (371)
  • 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

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...