Category Archives: Trademark

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Cummins v. T’Shirt Factory

17 Tuesday Dec 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Here’s a lawsuit over counterfeit apparel being sold at kiosks around Indiana malls bearing the CUMMINS trademark. Cummins is an Indianapolis-based designer and manufacturer of power generation equipment, power systems, gasoline engines, custom power supplies. Check out some sample “counterfeits” below:

Counterfeiting

Cummins, Inc. v. T’Shirt Factory et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01972-WTL-DML
File Date: Friday, December 13, 2013
Plaintiff: Cummins, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: T. Joseph Wendt of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: T’Shirt Factory, Freedom Custom Z, Shamir Harutyunyan, Does 1-10
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trademark Dilution, Trademark Counterfeiting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Eli Lilly files 2 lawsuits over pet brands ELANCO, COMFORTIS, TRIFEXIS and PANORAMIS

17 Sunday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Eli Lilly has filed two related cases involving its many lines of pet medicines, including ELANCO veterinary preparations, COMFORTIS flea-control preparations and TRIFEXIS and PANORAMIS pet medicines. The Defendants allegedly advertise and sell Australian and European version of the pet medicines branded with Eli Lilly’s trademarks through their respective websites.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Graham Nelson et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01800-JMS-DML
File Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Plaintiff: Eli Lilly and Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Jan M. Carroll of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Graham Nelson, Zoja Pty. Ltd.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Advertising, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Eli Lilly and Company v. Sebastian Wiradharma et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01802-RLY-TAB
File Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Plaintiff: Eli Lilly and Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Jan M. Carroll of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Sebastian Wiradharma, Singpet Pte. Ltd.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Advertising, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Ambre Blends v. doTERRA

14 Thursday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Solace Complaint

Here’s a pretty straightforward trademark dispute. Plaintiff, an Indiana LLC, challenges the defendants’ use of the SOLACE trademark. Plaintiff uses the mark in connection with “essential and/or aromatic oils.” Defendant doTERRA’s Solace is a “proprietary blend of CPTG essential oils that have traditionally been used to balance hormones and manage the symptoms of PMS and the transitional phases of menopause.”

[Update 1/6/2015] Case Dismissed

Ambre Blends, LLC v. doTERRA, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-01813-SEB-DML
File Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Plaintiff: Ambre Blends, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Z. Gordon, Jonathan G. Polak, Amy L. Wright of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: doTERRA, Inc., doTERRA International, LLC, Kerry Dodds
Cause: Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Forgery, Corrective Advertising Damages, Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Windstream Technologies v. Rambo, LLC

06 Wednesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

pgfu1

Here’s yet another tale of a dealer relationship gone bad. Plaintiff, a California company operating in North Vernon, Indiana, is a wind turbine manufacturer.  Defendant Rambo, LLC, located in Madison, Indiana, was contracted to provide component parts and act as an authorized dealer of Plaintiff’s products in certain territories.

See the Complaint below for the Plaintiff’s version of how things went wrong. Hopefully for the rest of us these parties can sort their differences soon and get back to providing more wind energy for Indiana.

Stay tuned for updates.

Windstream Technologies, Inc. v. Rambo, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 4:13-cv-00180-SEB-WGH
File Date: Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Plaintiff: Windstream Technologies, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Matthew Wilder Lorch of Lorch Law Office, LLC
Defendant: Rambo, LLC, Rambo Montrow Corporation, Rick Keebler, Does 1 through 10
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, Passing Off, Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract, Interference with Contract and Prospective Economic Advantage
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.

 

Trademark Protection of Local Government Official Insignia

14 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Here’s a trademark ruling  from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that will interest local government officials.

Both the City of Houston and the District of Columbia applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for federal registration of their respective official insignias. The USPTO denied their applications. Both plaintiffs appealed the denials and their appeals were addressed together in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Houston argued that a government entity is not an “applicant” prohibited by § 2(b) of the Lanham Act to register an insignia as a trademark. The District argued that § 2(b) must be read to not prohibit a governmental entity from registering an insignia so as to not conflict with the Paris Convention. The court determined that the statute is unambiguous and held that a government entity cannot register its own insignia as a trademark.

Holding: A local government entity may not obtain a federal trademark registration for the entity’s official insignia.

Unknown           Seal-DC