Category Archives: Trademark

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Sensory Technologies v. LogMeIn

08 Monday Sep 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This trademark dispute involves Plaintiff’s JOIN® trademark and Defendant’s JOIN.ME® trademark. Both marks are registered with the USPTO and used in connection with virtual meeting/video conferencing services. The trademarks have been used concurrently since July 2010. 

Sensory Technologies LLC v. LogMeIn Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-01406-SEB-DKL
File Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Plaintiff: Sensory Technologies LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Michael Z. Gordon of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: Logmein Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Forgery, Declaratory Judgment of Trademark Invalidity, Permanent Injunctive Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Chanel v. Chanel’s Salon

05 Friday Sep 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

From the Complaint: “Chanel recognizes the fact that “Chanel” is the first name of Defendant Chanel Jones. But this suit is not about Ms. Jones’ ability to use her name to identify herself. Ms. Jones is using CHANEL as a trade name for a beauty business and commercially exploiting the name CHANEL. There is no absolute right to exploit one’s given name commercially if such use is inconsistent with Chanel’s rights. In this case, Ms. Jones is not using her entire name but is instead only using that part of her name that copies Chanel’s famous CHANEL trademark. Ms. Jones’ use began long after the CHANEL mark was registered and became famous, and Ms. Jones’ use is in connection with services related to those offered by Chanel.”

Chanel, Inc. v. Chanel’s Salon LLC et al

Court Case Number: 2:14-cv-00304
File Date: Friday, August 29, 2014
Plaintiff: Chanel, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gregory A Neibarger
Defendant: Chanel’s Salon LLC, Chanel Jones
Cause: Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry

Complaint:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Rieke Corporation v. Riekes Packaging Corporation

08 Friday Aug 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Since as least as early as June 2000, Plaintiff, based in Auburn, Indiana, has continuously used the RIEKE PACKAGING SYSTEMS® trademark in connection with Plaintiff’s dispensing systems and closures. Around 2012, Defendant began using the RIEKES PACKAGING CORPORATION name in connection with glass bottles, plastic bottles, plastic closures, caps, metalclosures, dispensing closures and systems. Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Rieke Corporation v. Riekes Packaging Corporation

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00241-PPS-RBC
File Date: Thursday, August 07, 2014
Plaintiff: Rieke Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Kurt N. Jones of Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP
Defendant: Riekes Packaging Corporation
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey

Indiana University selected to participate in USPTO’s Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Defamation, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced the selection of 19 law schools that will join the USPTO’s Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program this fall. Indiana University School of Law was one of five law schools selected to join both the Patent and Trademark portions of the Program.

The participating law school clinical programs provide patent and trademark legal services to independent inventors and small businesses on a pro bono basis. Clinic clients can expect to receive searches and opinions, advice from clinic law students regarding their intellectual property (IP) needs under the supervision of a faculty practitioner, drafting and filing of applications, and representation before the USPTO.

The law school clinical programs possess solid Intellectual Property curricula supporting a participating student’s hands-on learning in the Program; a commitment to networking in the community; comprehensive pro bono services; and excellent case management systems. Students in the patent and/or trademark portions of the Program can expect to draft and file applications and respond to Office Actions.

Click here for the full USPTO announcement and a list of all schools selected to participate in the Certification Pilot Program.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Liquid Palace v. E Liquid Palace

17 Tuesday Jun 2014

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

This is a dispute between two electronic cigarette distributors over the marks “Genie,” Liquid Genie” and “Electric Genie.” Both parties began using their respective trademarks in 2013 and have retail locations approximately six miles apart. This case was removed from the Circuit Court for Floyd County, Indiana.

Liquid Palace, LLC et al v. E Liquid Palace, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 4:14-cv-00051-TWP-WGH
File Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Plaintiff: Liquid Palace, LLC, Robert W. Kaiser, Jr.
Plaintiff Counsel: H. Kevin Eddins, Kevin J. Fiet
Defendant: E Liquid Palace, Austin Simon, Russell Simon
Defendant Counsel: Loren T. Prizant, Robert John Theuerkauf
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage, Intentional Interference with Business Relationships, Unfair Competition, Injunctive Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.