Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Union Hospital v. Attachmate Corporation

Tags

, , , ,

Plaintiff has been licensing software from Defendant for about 16 years. In response to claims by Defendant that Plaintiff has exceeded the terms of the license (and a corresponding demand for $2 million in compensatory fees/damages), Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

Union Hospital, Inc. v. Attachmate Corporation

Court Case Number: 2:14-cv-00045-JMS-WGH
File Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Plaintiff: Union Hospital, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephen E. Reynolds, Michael A. Wukmer of Ice Miller LLP
Defendant: Attachmate Corporation
Cause: Declaratory Judgment on Copyright Infringement Claims, Declaratory Judgment on Copyright Infringement Claims for Unregistered Copyrights, Declaratory Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.

Indiana Cybersquatting Litigation Update – Rieth-Riley Construction v. Superior Asphalt

Tags

, , , ,

Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors in the asphalt manufacturing, supplying, paving and maintenance business. Defendant purchased the domain name Rieth-Riley.net, which includes Plaintiff’s registered trademark, and used that domain name to direct traffic to their own website, SuperiorAsphalt.com. Defendant also offered to sell the domain name to Plaintiff for $10,000.

Screen Shot 2014-02-13 at 6.27.52 AM

Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. v. Jeffrey Kresnak et al

Court Case Number: 3:14-cv-00280-RL-CAN
File Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Plaintiff: Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: D. Michael Anderson of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Jeffrey Kresnak, Superior Asphalt, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Cyberpiracy
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Rudy Lozano
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Noble Roman’s v. B & MP

Tags

, , , , ,

This lawsuit involves a franchise arrangement gone bad. Plaintiff Noble Roman’s, an Indianapolis-based corporation, alleges that Defendant breached their Franchise Agreement by failing to pay royalties as required and intentionally misreported sales for the purposes of avoiding payment of franchise fees.

Noble Roman’s Inc. v. B & MP, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00206-WTL-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Plaintiff: Noble Roman’s Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Steven K. Huffer of S.K. Huffer & Associates PC
Defendant: B & MP, LLC, Leslie Perdriau
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract, Fraud
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Trade Dress Litigation Update – KM Innovations v. Opportunities, Inc.

Tags

, , , ,

This is a trade dress lawsuit involving the product packaging for synthetic fiber snowballs. See the Complaint below for a description of the similarities and some really grainy comparison photos.

Plaintiff is based in New Castle, Indiana. Defendant is based in Colo, Iowa, which has a population of 876 and is named after a railroad official’s dog.

KM Innovations LLC v. Opportunities, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00199-SEB-DML
File Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Plaintiff: KM Innovations LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Dean E. McConnell of McConnell Intellectual Property Law
Defendant: Opportunities, Inc.
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Chartreuse v. Chartreuse Fragrances

Tags

, , , ,

The Plaintiff in this Declaratory Judgment action is an Indianapolis-based LLC that has used the CHARTREUSE trademark in connection with “handmade soy candles” since January 2013.

Screen Shot 2014-02-11 at 7.49.29 AM

Defendant is a New Jersey-based LLC that owns a federal registration for CHARTREUSE in connection with “Candles,” with a date of first use in commerce in April 2002. Defendant sent a “cease and desist” letter to Plaintiff in January 2014 asserting their trademark rights. Plaintiff responded by filing a complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement, Unenforceability and Invalidity.

The Plaintiff asserts in their Complaint that Defendant has not used their trademark for over three (3) years, that the CHARTREUSE mark is descriptive and therefore not entitled to registration and that the claimed date of first use in the registration is inaccurate. If these things can be proved, Plaintiff may have a shot to invalidate the registration. However, in addition to counterclaims based on the federal registration, I’d expect Defendant’s Response to include a full slate of common law trademark infringement counterclaims based on their lengthy use of their trademark.

Maybe I’m in the wrong line of work. There must be good money in “handmade soy candles” if Plaintiff can afford to hire a big law firm to pursue federal litigation to protect a trademark in use for just over a year.

Chartreuse LLC v. Chartreuse Fragrances LLC

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00181-WTL-DKL
File Date: Friday, February 07, 2014
Plaintiff: Chartreuse LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: Chartreuse Fragrances LLC
Cause: Unenforceability and Invalidity of Defendant’s Mark, Non-Infringement of Trademark
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue