USA Football sues USA Flag for Trademark Infringement

16 Thursday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

USA Football organizes football training events for players, coaches, and officials. USA Football was endowed by the National Football League and the National Football League Players Association in 2002.

USA Football has filed a lawsuit in Indiana attempting to prevent the use of the mark USA FLAG in connection with flag football tournaments and leagues. The parties to the lawsuit have a lengthy history, with Defendant Burnett first approaching USA Football in 2017 about a potential collaboration. Over the following years, the relationship involved both a Consulting Agreement and an Event Collaboration Agreement between the parties. However, per the Complaint (below), USA Football always maintained that the USA FLAG mark could not be used, previously opposing a USA FLAG trademark application.

Unable to successfully persuade/convince USA Flag to stop using an allegedly confusingly similar trademark, USA Football now seeks court intervention, including requests for injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. As USA Flag seems dug into its position, this lawsuit could get interesting. USA Flag previously chose not to defend in the trademark opposition proceeding, resulting in a notice of default. Surely USA Flag won’t attempt that same strategy in federal court. Stay tuned for updates.

USA Football, Inc. v. Flag Football World Championship Tour, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00274-TWP-KMB
File Date: February 13, 2023
Plaintiff: USA Football, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Amie N. Peele of Peele Law Group, PC; Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendants: Flag Football World Championship Tour, LLC, USA Flag, LLC, Travis Burnett
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Vicarious Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment, Conversion, Deception, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Kellie M. Barr

Complaint:

February 2023 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

15 Wednesday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

The last four weeks have been relatively quiet for Indiana trademark and copyright lawsuits. A few lawsuits settled unceremoniously. Several telephonic conferences were held and some follow-up conferences have been scheduled. A few motions are now fully-briefed, so next month could see several important court orders.

Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC v. Lynn Retail, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 6/4/2021) – On January 27, 2023, the Court, following advisement by counsel that settlement was reached, ordered that dismissal documents be filed within 30 days.

Noble Roman’s, Inc. v. AMI Stores Management, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 6/6/2021) –  AMI has requested a two-day extension of time to February 17, 2023 to reply to the Noble Roman’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc. (ND, filed 8/31/2021) – A hearing is schedule on February 22, 2023 on Defendant’s fully-briefed Motion to Compel Documents from Plaintiff.

Thomas v. ooShirts, Inc. et al. (SD, filed 9/24/2021) – The parties held a telephonic status conference on February 9, 2023 and another is scheduled on March 8, 2023.

Edutainment Live, LLC v. Video Game Palooza et al. (SD, filed 10/11/2021) –  The parties held a telephonic status conference on February 2, 2023 and another is scheduled on February 22, 2023.

Gabet et al. v. Amazon.com. Inc. et al. (ND, filed 1/20/2022) – The parties held a telephonic status conference on February 10, 2023 and another is scheduled on March 23, 2023.

NuStar Enterprises LLC v. Reloaded Merch LLC et al. (ND, filed 4/1/2022) – On January 27, 2023, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, all parties bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel et al (ND, filed 5/18/2022) –  Motions, responses, and replies, oh my. This case has seen nearly 20 filings in the last month, so if you’re following along with this lawsuit, go check out PACER for all the details.

PUMA SE et al. v. Brooks Sports, Inc. (SD, filed 7/8/2022) – On January 20, 2023, the lawsuit was transferred to the Western District of Washington and assigned case number 2:23-cv-00116.

Broadcast Music, Inc. et al v. Thirty-Six Saloon, LLC d/b/a Thirty Six Saloon et al. (SD, filed 7/27/2022) – On January 27, 2023, BMI filed a Motion for Default Judgment.

Schwartz v. Kilroy’s North America, LLC et al (SD, filed 8/5/2022) – The parties held a telephonic status conference on January 9, 2023 and a settlement conference is scheduled on March 13, 2023.

Oakley, Inc. v. Batter’s Box Training, LLC et al (SD, filed 8/11/2022) – The parties held a telephonic status conference on February 6, 2023 and a settlement conference is scheduled on March 2, 2023.

Honest Abe Roofing franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al. (SD, filed 9/7/2022) – No update this month.

Phoenix USA RV, Inc. v. Hoosier Custom Cruisers LLC et al. (ND, removed 10/7/2022) – The Court modified a non-dispositive motion deadline but there we no other updates this month.

MaddenCo Inc. v. Reed et al. (SD, filed 10/31/2022) – On January 26, 2023, Defendant Darby filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. A telephonic pretrial conference is scheduled for February 22, 2023.

The Center for Gestalt Development, Inc. v. Bowman (SD (11/09/2022) – As of February 10, 2023, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue is now fully-briefed.

1.4G Holdings, LLC v. North Central Industries, Inc. et al. (SD 1/05/2023) – A telephonic pretrail conference is scheduled on April 11, 2023.

Stross v. Lynn Boolman Auto Sales Limited Liability Company et al. (ND 1/25/2023) – No update yet.

Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc. v. AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC (ND 2/01/2023) – No update yet.

Delta Faucet Company v. Watkins et al. (SD 2/01/2023) – No update yet.

January 2023 Updates

December 2022 Updates –  December 2021 Updates

Delta Faucet Company sues Amazon Counterfeiter over Unauthorized Sales

03 Friday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Delta Faucet Company is once again pursuing a counterfeit faucet seller from Amazon in the Southern District of Indiana. The Complaint (below) details how a company’s trademarks are impacted by unauthorized sellers and the resulting negative online marketplace reviews. As with Delta’s previously-filed lawsuits, the Complaint highlights the gray market existing within Amazon’s “Fulfillment by Amazon” services that allows for counterfeit sales, leading to invalid product warranties, disgruntled consumers, and damaged brands.

Delta’s most recent “counterfeit” lawsuit resulted in a default judgment and permanent injunction as the Defendant never appeared. The lawsuit took just a few days over one years. The injunction, probably Delta’s real goal, presumably allowed them to finally stop the unauthorized Amazon sales. However, like mosquitoes, stop one counterfeiter and another will inevitably appear. We can probably expect a similar result in this lawsuit…no appearance by the defendants, default judgment, and injunction.

Stay tuned for updates.

Delta Faucet Company v. Watkins et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00200-JMS-MKK
File Date: February 1, 2023
Plaintiff: Delta Faucet Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendants: Ben Watkins, John Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Deception
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Complaint:

Northwest Indiana Jewelry Stores Clash over Diamond Logos

03 Friday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Since 1905, Albert’s Diamond Jewelers has been selling diamond jewelry in Northwest Indiana. In 2002, they adopted the logo seen below when they moved to their current location in Schererville, Indiana. Their logo has not been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The logo is described as follows: “The mark prominently incorporates a diamond drawing with sharp edges and a multitude of internal sketch lines, all intended to evoke in a potential customer’s mind a precision cut, high-quality diamond. It’s name “Albert’s” appears above the term “Diamond Jewelers,” and incorporates a distinct style of typeface/font….” See Complaint (below), Section 13.

AaLand Diamond Jewelers recently opened a new location in Crown Point, Indiana, which is about 9 miles away from Schererville. AaLand has adopted a logo that Albert’s considers to be “suspiciously similar” to the 21-year old Albert’s logo.

Albert’s reached out to AaLand in late 2022 about their concern, but the parties have not found an amicable resolution. Albert’s initial letter, via counsel, references a single instance of consumer confusion in which an anonymous customer congratulated Albert’s on opening a new store. Albert’s has now filed a lawsuit seeking Court intervention.

I’ll let defense counsel do their job and dig up tons of other photos of similar jewelry store logos, but I can at least compare the parties’ respective logos.

In my opinion, the distinctive elements of the Albert’s font are the swooping, extended arm (leg?) of the “A” and the diamond-shaped asterisk. Neither of those elements appear in the AaLand logo. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the AaLand font is just a standard, stock font. Font experts leave a comment below. Albert’s utilizes all capitalized letters, while AaLand features the lower case “a”.

Looking at the two diamonds, they are clearly not identical. They both appear just like what you’d expect a diamond logo to look like, basically what you see on most jewelry store signs. Both are the classic diamond-shape outline with many internal lines depicting facets, just like a diamond. Jewelry experts (and eventually defense counsel) may be able to identify the differences in cuts portrayed on the logos.

Both logos incorporate the generic phrase “Diamond Jewelers,” but the Albert’s logo separates their name from the generic phrase with lines both above and below. The generic phrase is about 5/7 the width of the Albert’s name. The AaLand name is the same width as the generic phrase and separated by one line, which is also the same width as the wording.

If these two jewelry stores weren’t 9 miles apart, would there be any problem? Does close proximity (9 miles) override the ability to use generic elements in your logo? AaLand apparently doesn’t think so based off just one anonymous instance of consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for AaLand’s response to Albert’s Complaint.

Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc. v. AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC

Court Case Number: 2-23-cv-00039-PPS-JPK
File Date: February 1, 2023
Plaintiff: Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gary E. Hood of Hood Legal Group PC, Daniel W. Glavin of O’Neill McFadden & Willett LLP
Defendants: AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint:

Austin-based Photographer sues Portland, Indiana Car Dealership for Copyright Infringement

27 Friday Jan 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The plaintiff in this copyright lawsuit is a professional photographer from Austin, Texas. His work is focused on architectural and landscape photography.

One defendant, Lynn Boolman Auto Sales (“Boolman”), is a used car dealership in Portland, Indiana.

The other defendant, Carsforsale.com, is an online auto marketplace operating out of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It seems from the Complaint (below) that both defendants made an unauthorized use of one of the plaintiff’s landscape photographs, including cropping the photograph to remove the photographer’s signature.

It is not clear whether there is any other connection between the two defendants besides both using the photograph. Jurisdiction over Carsforsale.com seems tenuous. At least from the Complaint and related Exhibit (below), I don’t see any action that Carsforsale.com took in Indiana, either if they first posted the photograph online or if Boolman posted it to their website.

In addition to the Copyright Infringement claim, the Complaint also includes a claim for Removal of Copyright Management Information, based on the cropping of the author’s signature. However, one of the more interesting and unusual aspects of the lawsuit is the plaintiff’s third claim for Addition of False Copyright Management Information, based on the car dealership overlaying its own logo and contact information onto the (cropped) plaintiff’s photograph. Presumably, the dealership will maintain that the information added to the photograph does not identify the author or copyright owner, and thus doesn’t qualify as “copyright management information” (see definition here).

The plaintiff made prior unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with the defendants in December 2021 and January 2022. Finding no satisfactory resolution, the plaintiff now seeks the intervention of the Court. Photography copyright lawsuits often settle quickly, but stay tuned for updates.

Stross v. Lynn Boolman Auto Sales Limited Liability Company et al

Court Case Number: 3:23-cv-00061-DRL-MGG
File Date: January 25, 2023
Plaintiff: Alexander Bayonne Stross
Plaintiff Counsel: Evan A. Andersen of SRIPLAW, P.A.
Defendants: Lynn Boolman Auto Sales Limited Liability Company, Carsforsale.com, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Removal of Copyright Management Information, Addition of False Copyright Management Information
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint:

Exhibit 2: