• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Trademark

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Wheaton Van Lines v. Unigroup

02 Friday Dec 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Denise K. LaRue, Federal Trademark Infringement, Litigation Update, Richard L. Young, Trademark Dilution, Unfair Competition

Wheaton Van Lines Inc. v. Unigroup Inc. et al

Plaintiff alleges that it’s WE MOVE YOUR LIFE trademark is infringed by Defendant’s domain name, www.yourlifeonthemove.com.

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-01590-RLY-DKL
File Date: Thursday, December 01, 2011
Plaintiff: Wheaton Van Lines Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: S. Andrew Burns of Cox Sargeant & Burns PC
Defendant: Unigroup Inc., United Mayflower Container Services LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal and State Unfair Competition, Trademark Dilution
Court: Southern District Court of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

View this document on Scribd

Trademark Licensing Lessons from the Faucet Couture

09 Wednesday Nov 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Branding, Fashion, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Licensing

It looks like a unique cross-licensing venture may force me to revise my standard email that I send to trademark clients. For years, I’ve used the following language to help clients understand how to properly select goods and services for their trademark application:

An applicant must state the specific goods or services for which registration is sought and with which the applicant has actually used the mark in commerce. You will not be able to claim federal trademark protection for goods and services outside of those listed in your application (for example, a plumbing company could begin selling “INSERT CLIENT TRADEMARK” faucets without infringing upon your registration as it will not claim “faucets.”

Introducing Jason Wu for Brizo. It turns out a trademark’s expansion into the faucet market may not be so unlikely after all:

Jason Wu is a popular Manhattan-based fashion designer. Brizo is an Indianapolis-based provider of luxury faucets. The two have collaborated to create faucets that, besides looking good, also have a green tech aspect that is pretty cool:

The Jason Wu for Brizo Odin faucet is equipped with SmartTouchPlus(TM) Technology, which allows users to start and stop the flow of water with a simple touch anywhere on the spout or handle of the faucet. For a more intuitive experience, its hands-free mode activates the flow of water when hands are anywhere within 4″ of the faucet…an exclusive temperature control technology featuring a new temperature sensing indicator. A LED light display built into the base of the faucet uses shades of light, from blue to magenta to red, to indicate actual water temperature. The electronic valve built into the lavatory faucet also monitors the mixture of hot and cold water to help provide a consistent temperature for the user, while its high temperature limit stop offers an added degree of safety.

This teamup is a nice reminder that collaborative trademark cross-licensing can be a win-win for all parties. If successful, the Jason Wu for Brizo collection will reinforce the position of the Brizo faucet brand as fashion forward and innovative, and it marks the debut of the popular Jason Wu into the world of interior design.

Have Jason Wu and Brizo got you thinking about finding a trademark license for your company? Although the terms of every trademark license are different and may be freely negotiated between the licensor and licensee, all licenses must at least include the following provisions to be valid:

  • The legal names of the licensor and licensee
  • Identification of the trademark(s) that are the subject of the licensing agreement
  • Identification of the products/services with which the licensed mark may be used
  • The geographic territory in which the licensee may operate and sell its products/services
  • Quality control provisions that set forth clear standards as to the nature and quality of the licensed products/services

Optimally, a trademark license should also explicitly state:

  • whether the license is exclusive or non-exclusive
  • the duration of the license
  • whether the license may be renewed and under what conditions
  • the amount of any royalty payments or other compensation due to the licensor and when those payments are to be made
  • the responsibilities of both parties upon the termination or expiration of the license
  • the consequences of breaching the license and the time in which the breach must be remedied

Can you think of other innovative trademark cross-licensing efforts from Indiana companies? Leave a comment below.

Stories from the Week that Was – 10/30-11/5/11

06 Sunday Nov 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Authors, Bloggers, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Privacy, Social Media, Stories from the Week that Was, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

BitTorrent, Occupy Wall Street

Stories from the Week that Was – 10/30-11/5/11

Protecting Your Online Reputation: 4 Things You Need to Know

Major Book Publisher Files Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuit

Occupy Wall Street applies for trademark

Just how big is 7 billion?

People Who Use Macs At Work Are Richer And More Productive


– WIPO IP Facts and Figures 2011

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Eli Lilly v. Yanchep Veterinary Clinic

05 Saturday Nov 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting, Jane Magnus-Stinson, Litigation Update, Tim A. Baker, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Eli Lilly and Company v. Yanchep Veterinary Clinic Pty Ltd. et al

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-01469-JMS-TAB
File Date: Friday, November 04, 2011
Plaintiff: Eli Lilly and Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Jan M. Carroll of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Yanchep Veterinary Clinic Pty Ltd.
Petvetshop Pty Ltd.
Paul Sorensen
Dr. Cymantha Sorensen
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

View this document on Scribd

More questions about LiTEBOX: Trademark Fraud?

28 Friday Oct 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Branding, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Mitch Daniels

When new companies come to Indianapolis promising tech jobs, particularly as part of a joint announcement with the Governor and Mayor, I like to check our their trademark portfolio and make sure all is in order. Apparently in the excitement of watching Michael Jordan highlights on top of semis or receiving multi-million dollar tax abatements, LiTEBOX has added the federal trademark registration notice, ®, to their Facebook page despite not owning a valid trademark registration. This could cause LiTEBOX trademark problems now (fraud) or later (inability to protect their mark based on this earlier fraud).

“Improper use of the federal registration symbol, ®, that is deliberate and intends to deceive or mislead the public or the USPTO is fraud.” Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure 906.04

In addition, LiTEBOX at some point is going to have to reconcile their use of the trademark with the owners of this trademark application:

Trademark considerations may seem small given all of the other questions that have been raised about LiTEBOX, but let’s hope they find good IP counsel soon to get their trademark situation sorted before it results in a big headache.

To everyone else, this is a good reminder to scan your marketing materials and online platforms for improper use of a trademark notice.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (332)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (34)
  • Indiana (608)
  • Indianapolis (52)
  • Intellectual Property (671)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (602)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (217)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (371)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (369)
  • 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

    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...