• 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 – Franklin College v. Franklin University

07 Tuesday Jul 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trademark

≈ 1 Comment

NEW Indiana trademark litigation alert:

Franklin College has filed a federal complaint against Franklin University, an Ohio-based institution, for trademark infringement and unfair competitive practices.  Franklin College, located 25 miles south of Indianapolis, is a liberal arts institution with about 1,000 undergraduate students.  It celebrates its 175th anniversary this year.  Franklin University, based in Columbus, Ohio, is opening a new location in the Castleton area.

FranklinComplaint

Franklin College President Jay Moseley says the decision to take action was made after Franklin University began an aggressive advertising campaign in central Indiana to promote classes being offered this fall.  He says the complaint is an effort to protect Franklin College trademarks while shielding alumni and students from confusion.

“Since Franklin University began its advertising blitz in Central Indiana this spring, we have received calls, comments and e-mail messages from many people asking why we changed our name or whether we’ve opened a satellite office for online education in Indianapolis,” Moseley said in a statement.

“We have great concerns about the impact of the obvious confusion, especially with prospective students and employers of our alumni.”

Of particular concern to Franklin College is its trademark clock tower logo.  “Their ads include colors and a ‘clock tower’ design amazingly similar to our logo,” Moseley said.

FranklinCFranklinU

Moseley also noted that the Ohio school has recently begun referring to itself as “Franklin University – Indianapolis” or simply “Franklin” in local and Internet advertising.

Franklin University has responded with the following statement:

Franklin University is and has been publicizing its presence in Indianapolis using its own name in a completely factual and consistent manner, and in close cooperation with the State of Indiana and the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. It is unfortunate that Franklin College did not contact us if it had concerns about our marketing, since we did advise the President of Franklin College of our intentions prior to beginning to offer programs in Indianapolis in 2009.

Franklin University offers academic programs that are distinct from and targeted to a very different student demographic than Franklin College. Programs are intended for the working individual, not the traditional-age on-campus college student. The University focuses on business and professional education, such as majors in accounting and business administration, not on a traditional liberal arts education.

Founded in 1902, Franklin University has been serving adult students for more than 100 years. It is the leading and most experienced educator of adult students and is nationally recognized for its student-centered approach. Franklin University, a non-profit institution of higher education provides flexible, online as well as face-to-face class scheduling, maximizes transfer of previously earned college credits, and offers tuition rates far below the national average. Franklin University has been serving adult students in Indiana through its online offerings and Community College Alliance program for nearly a decade.

Now that Franklin College has chosen to use the legal system to resolve this matter, rather than contacting Franklin University, Franklin University will certainly act to protect the right to use its own name to publicize its programs in a factual and consistent manner.

For more information about Franklin University, please visit http://www.franklin.edu.

Love the response.  Never miss an opportunity to get the word out about your course offerings and target student body.

Each parties’ respective word mark abstract:

FranklinCollege

Picture 3

Of course, the Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Law Blog will keep you updated as this matter proceeds.  No prediction on the outcome here, since I happen to know some of the attorneys involved.  But it should be interesting…

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-00830-WTL-TAB
File Date: Monday, July 6, 2009
Plaintiff: Franklin College of Indiana
Plaintiff Counsel: Wayne C. Turner, Michael R. Limrick of Bingham McHale LLP
Defendant: Franklin University, Inc.
Cause: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

The complaint includes the following causes of action: (1) Federal Trademark Infringement; (2) False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition; (3) Indiana State Trademark Infringement; (4) Indiana State Trademark Dilution; and (5) Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition.

Leave a comment with your email if you’d like a copy of the full Complaint.

Indiana RV Manufacturers Settle Trademark Infringement Case

02 Thursday Jul 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

heartland-bighorn

Indiana RV manufacturers Jayco Inc. (“Jayco”) and Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC (“Heartland”) have jointly announced a settlement of the trademark infringement lawsuit filed earlier in the year by Jayco against Heartland.   The case had been brought in the Northern District of Indiana, Case No. 3:2009-cv-00171.

The suit alleged that Heartland has violated federal trademark law by adopting the Eagle Ridge name for a line of vehicles.  Jayco claims to have held trademark rights in the EAGLE trademark since at least 1991.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this seemed like a prime settlement opportunity.  Heartland just didn’t have enough investment in the Eagle Ridge mark to justify going forward with potentially expensive trademark litigation.  In a crowded trademark marketplace, you’re bound to have friction from time to time.  It’s nice to see this matter resolve itself before the fireworks began.

Coley Brady, Heartland’s director of sales and marketing, said of the settlement, “Even though Heartland believes its Eagle Ridge line does not infringe upon Jayco’s Eagle trademark, we did not have a significant investment in Eagle Ridge as a name for our fifth-wheel travel trailers. We understand Jayco’s concern and out of respect for Jayco will no longer offer any products bearing the Eagle Ridge name.”

Sid Johnson, director of marketing for Jayco, said, “Jayco has used the Eagle name for nearly 20 years on some of our most popular RV product lines. We are grateful that Heartland is willing to change the name of its new product line to address our concerns in protecting our valuable EAGLE trademark.”

If only every trademark dispute could end so peacefully…

Source: RVBusiness

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation v. Landmark Media Group

22 Monday Jun 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Fraud, Counterfeiting, False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, Federal Trademark Infringement, Tim A. Baker, Unfair Competition, William T. Lawrence

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-00767-WTL-TAB
File Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Plaintiff: Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, HDN Development Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Abram B. Gregory, Jonathan G. Polak of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: Landmark Media Group, Inc., John D. Keller
Cause: (1) Federal Trademark Infringement; (2) Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Passing Off and False Advertising; (3) Counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. 1116(d); and (4) Common Law Fraud.
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

KrispyKreme

The Defendants failed to appear and the Court entered a Default Judgment.

Leave a comment with your email if you’d like a copy of the full Complaint or Judgment.

Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2009

08 Monday Jun 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Federal Initiatives, Legislation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

A Senate bill introduced recently, if approved, will repeal a 1999 Act barring U.S. courts from hearing claims by foreign nationals asserting rights to trademarks associated with expropriated property.  The bill would also allow U.S. farmers and ranchers to export their products to Cuba and open travel by all Americans to Cuba.  The bill, S. 1089, Promoting American Agriculture and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2009, was presented by Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and 14 others.

Section 211 of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act bars U.S. courts from hearing claims by foreign nationals asserting rights to trademarks associated with expropriated property.  It also bars the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from renewing such trademark registrations.  In 2001, however, the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that Section 211 violates WTO rules because it applies only to foreign nationals, not to U.S. citizens. Section 211 also violates the Inter-American Convention on reciprocal trademark protections. Section 9 of the 2009 Act would repeal Section 211 and bring the United States into compliance with international intellectual property obligations.

lugar_obamaWith regard to the agricultural exports, Senator Lugar stated, “Indiana farmers’ annual agricultural exports are increasing and have exceeded $2.4 billion in value.  Access to the Cuban market, located near the United States in our own hemisphere, will be a valuable opportunity for Hoosier grain, livestock, and vegetable producers, as well as Indiana’s overall economy. I remain committed to increasing trade opportunities for Indiana’s farms and businesses.”

The Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Law Blog will keep you updated on whether this legislation is passed.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Heckler & Koch v. Tippman Sports, Tigerstripe Paintball

07 Thursday May 2009

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

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

Tim A. Baker, William T. Lawrence

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-00560-WTL-TAB
File Date: Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Plaintiff: Heckler & Koch, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Brian J. McGinnis, Darlene R. Seymour of Continental Enterprises
Defendant: Tippman Sports LLC, Tigerstripe Paintball LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

heckler1Leave a comment with your email if you’d like a copy of the full Complaint.

← 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...