Tag Archives: Breach of Contract

Trade Dress Lawsuit filed in Indiana over Trailer Axle Hubcaps

04 Monday Mar 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

An Elkhart, Indiana-based hubcap manufacturer has been sued for trademark and trade dress infringement. The plaintiff, Valcrum of Cypress, Texas, manufactures hubcaps for medium-duty (8,000-16,000 pounds) trailer axles. Valcrum’s axles use a distinctive design consisting of a “signature red hex bezel having a hexagonal outer perimeter and an inner diameter.”

The defendant, Dexter Axle Company, has an extensive business history with Valcrum. The ultimate result of the breakdown of their business relationship, as detailed in the Complaint below, was Dexter producing its own line of axle hubcaps, which allegedly violate the plaintiff’s trademark and trade dress rights. The Complaint also alleges numerous violations of a nondisclosure agreement executed by the parties in 2020.

Stay tuned for updates.

Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Company, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:24-cv-00190-DRL-MGG
File Date: March 1, 2024
Plaintiff: Valcrum, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew J. Chabot of Botkin & Hall, LLP
Defendant: Dexter Axle Company, LLC
Cause: Breach of Contract, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint:

Baskin-Robbins sues Ex-Franchisee over Broad Ripple, Greenwood Ice Cream Shops

15 Thursday Feb 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The owner of Baskin Robbins ice cream shops in Broad Ripple and Greenwood, Indiana, has been accused of violating the terms of its Baskin-Robbins franchise agreement. The prior franchise relationship was terminated in June 2023 due to nonpayment of about $50,000, but the ice cream shops continued to operate as Baskin Robbins while selling product from a competing ice cream brand.

Subsequent cease-and-desist communications and collection attempts have been unsuccessful, and Baskin Robbins now seeks the intervention of the federal court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Stay tuned for updates.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00293-JRS-CSW
File Date: February 14, 2024
Plaintiff: Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC, BR IP Holder LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Justin O. Sorrell of Riley Bennett Egloff LLP
Defendant: Blue Moo Ice Cream Inc., Robert Holocher
Cause: Breach of Contract, Breach of Personal Guarantees, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Crystal S. Wildeman

Complaint:

Andretti Global sued in Indiana Federal Court by Design-Builder of New Fishers Headquarters

20 Tuesday Jun 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This lawsuit involves the design and construction of a new headquarters for Andretti Global in Fishers, Indiana. The Plaintiff is a construction company that had been contracted to design and build the new facility. The Complaint (below) details how the business relationship went downhill pretty much from the onset, starting with late payments. The contract was terminated for cause in April 7, 2023. The Plaintiff disputes the stated grounds for termination. Construction on the facility has now been halted, presumably pending the outcome of this litigation or the related mediation.

The lawsuit includes a claim for copyright infringement due to the Defendants’ alleged post-termination use of the Plaintiff’s architectural designs. However, the Complaint does not state whether the architectural designs are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, which is mandatory for a federal copyright lawsuit, so the copyright claim may be subject to a 12(b) motion.

The Complaint quotes one of the Defendants’ representatives as saying “If you want to go to war with a bunch of international billionaires, we’ll bury you.” The Plaintiff apparently has not been deterred by the threat of “war,” filing this lawsuit to insist that the “international billionaires” pay up the ~$1 million allegedly owed at the time of termination.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Hamilton County Court on May 24, 2023 and removed to the Southern District of Indiana on June 19, 2023. Stay tuned for updates.

DCG Indiana, Inc. v. Cardinal XLIII, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-01058-MPB-KMB
File Date: June 19, 2023
Plaintiff: DGC Indiana, Inc. d/b/a Dillon Construction Group a/k/a/ Dillon Construction a/k/a DCG Construction
Plaintiff Counsel: J. Michael Cavosie, J. Greg Easter, Elizabeth S. Schmitt, Katelyn Klingler of EASTER & CAVOSIE
Defendant: Cardinal XLIII, LLC, Motorsport Real Estate Ventures, LLC d/b/a Andretti Motorsports; Studio M Architecture and Planning, LLC, Gradex, Inc., Glenmark Construction Company, Inc.
Cause: Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Transfer, Copyright Infringement, Lien Foreclosure
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Referred To: Kellie M. Barr

Complaint:

Evansville Software Company sues Ex-Developers and their New Employer over Stolen Software Code

01 Tuesday Nov 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The plaintiff in this lawsuit, MaddenCo, Inc., is an Evansville, Indiana-based software developer. Specifically, they develop software systems for independent tire dealers and truck stop service centers.

The defendants include two ex-employees of the plaintiff, a software development manager and software developer, who have allegedly developed infringing software code for a competing Louisiana company (also a named defendant) in violation of contractual obligations and fiduciary duties. The plaintiff’s software code has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Stay tuned for updates.

MaddenCo Inc. v. Reed et al.

Court Case Number: 3:22-cv-173
File Date: October 31, 2022
Plaintiff: MaddenCo Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael T. McNally of Delk McNally LLP
Defendants: James Reed, Dru Darby, HG AutoTech LLC
Cause: Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Tortious Interference, Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Representation, False Designation of Origin, Reverse Passing Off, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Declaratory Judgment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Honest Abe Roofing sues Georgia Couple for Breach of Franchise Agreement, Trademark Infringement

09 Friday Sep 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In April 2021, the Georgia-based defendants in this Indiana lawsuit entered into a Franchise Agreement with Honest Abe, a roof installation corporation located in Terre Haute, Indiana. The franchise relationship did not last long, and Honest Abe send a first Notice of Default in March 2022 asserting several material defaults. Following the failure by defendants to timely cure the defaults, a Notice of Termination was sent to the defendants on May 5, 2022. The defendants allegedly owe the plaintiff around $186,000 in past-due fees. The defendants are also accused of violating their non-compete agreements by starting a competing roofing company in the same geographic area. The Complaint (below) details interactions between an investigator and the defendants in which the defendants continue to refer to themselves as “Honest Abe.”

Honest Abe also requests a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (see Motion below).

Based on the very thorough complaint (with 19 exhibits) and the motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, I expect the defendants will have a big fight on their hands. Pursuant to the Franchise Agreements, the defendants could also be responsible for Honest Abe’s attorney fees and costs, which are probably already substantial.

Stay tuned for updates.

Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 2:22-cv-00387-JRS-MG
File Date: September 7, 2022
Plaintiff: Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: William W. Drummy of Wilkinson Goeller Modesitt Wilkinson & Drummy LLP
Defendants: DCH & Associates, LLC, Honest Abe Roofing of Macon Georgia, LLC, Dameion Harris, Christine Harris
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Breach of Franchise Agreement, Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, Misappropriation of Goodwill
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Mario Garcia

Complaint:

Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction: