Tag Archives: Breach of Contract

Nelson Alarm sues Former Co-owner over nelsonalarm.net

14 Wednesday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In April 2015, Security Masters Corporation bought the assets of Nelson Alarm, Inc. The deal, an asset purchase agreement that Daniel E. Nelson signed personally, included the “Nelson Alarm” business and trademark name and the goodwill that went with it. Security Masters has done business as Nelson Alarm in Indianapolis since the closing. It says it has used the name continuously for the sale and installation of home and business security systems.

In July 2026, Security Masters learned that nelsonalarm.net had been registered on April 19, 2024, and was redirecting traffic to dnaintegrators.com, the site of D-N-A Integrators, Inc. Daniel E. Nelson is the founder and president of that company. The Complaint (below) says the two firms sell to the same buyers. A letter went out on July 8, 2026, demanding that the use stop and that the domain be transferred. The redirect came down. The parties were otherwise unable to find a suitable resolution. Security Masters now seeks the intervention of the Southern District.

Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm v. D-N-A Integrators, Inc. and Daniel E. Nelson

Court Case Number: 1:26-cv-02112-JPH-MKK
File Date: October 1, 2026
Plaintiff: Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate and David A.W. Wong of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendants: D-N-A Integrators, Inc. and Daniel E. Nelson
Cause: Breach of Contract; Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin; Common-law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement; Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Security Masters filed Serial No. 99900763 for NELSON ALARM on June 23, 2026, covering installation and monitoring of security and fire alarms, design and testing of the systems, and related services in Classes 37, 42, and 45. The application was awaiting examination when the complaint was filed. The suit does not need a registration certificate to plead § 1125(a) or the state claims. It does plead that the name was distinctive when the domain was registered, and that the registration was in bad faith.

The relief asked for is the usual set for this kind of file: an injunction against use of NELSON ALARM or anything confusingly similar, transfer of nelsonalarm.net, an accounting, damages, trebling where the statute allows it, statutory damages under the ACPA of up to $100,000 for the domain, destruction of materials bearing the mark, and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

Complaint:

Security Masters Corporation ComplaintDownload

BIOCOTE vs. BIOCOAT…are you confused?

11 Friday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

BioCote Limited sues BioBond Adhesives for trademark infringement in N.D. Ind. (4:26-cv-00086)

BioCote Limited sued Lafayette adhesives maker BioBond Adhesives, Inc. on August 19, 2026, in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, Case No. 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, Indiana trademark and unfair competition claims, and breach of a brand license over BioBond’s BIOCOAT antimicrobial coatings.

The Complaint (below) is a licensee fight, not a stranger-on-the-internet fight. UK company BioCote owns U.S. Registration No. 5,306,757 for the BIOCOTE logo in Class 2 for antimicrobial powder-coating compositions (issued October 10, 2017; first U.S. sales under the mark pleaded as at least 2013). It licenses the chemistry and the mark to partners who put BIOCOTE on finished goods. BioBond, which makes plant-based adhesives and protective coatings in Lafayette, is pleaded as one of those partners. Under the Brand Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, BioBond took a non-exclusive license to the BIOCOTE mark, agreed the IP stayed with BioCote, and promised it “must not use in its business any other trademark similar to the [BioCote] Mark,” must not apply to register “Biocote [or] any similar word,” and must not do anything that would diminish the registration.

BioBond then launched BioCoat SUP250 and BioCoat SWaE250 – water-based polyurethane and epoxy coatings marketed for food-processing surfaces and “defense against mold, fungi, and other microorganisms” – and, the Complaint says, filed a standard-character U.S. application for BIOCOAT covering anti-mold, anti-fungal, and anti-microbial protective coatings. BioCote says it learned of the filing from a watch notice, understood after discussions that BioBond would drop the mark and the application, then found the application still moving. It opposed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91303474) and now wants the Northern District to stop the use.

The pleaded theory is short: BIOCOTE and BIOCOAT share five of seven letters and, BioCote says, sound the same; the goods are antimicrobial coatings sold into overlapping industrial channels; and the customer was already a licensed BIOCOTE partner, which the Complaint says makes source confusion worse, not better. BioCote seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against BIOCOAT, destruction of marked packaging, refusal or cancellation of the application, damages (including a treble/enhanced-damages request on alleged willfulness), and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

BioCote Limited vs. BioBond Adhesives, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ
File Date: August 19, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: BioCote Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie L. Teaford, H. Jonathan Redway, Nicole M. Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin; Indiana Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Breach of Contract
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Gretchen S. Lund
Referred To: Abizer Zanzi

Complaint:

BioCote Limited ComplaintDownload

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.

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: