Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

GNARLY HEAD wine vs. GNARLY GROVE hard cider…are you confused?

02 Wednesday Nov 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff Gnarly Head, a California winery, asserts that Columbus, Indiana’s Simmons Winery has adopted a confusingly similar trademark and trade dress with their new line of Gnarly Grove hard cider.

I’ll leave the question of confusion for you. What I’d really like to know is who is mixing wine and hard cider??? Tasty?

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-10-31-06-am

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-10-22-45-am

Delicato Vineyards v. Gnarly Grove Cider Co.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-02932-TWP-DKL
File Date: Friday, October 28, 2016
Plaintiff: Delicato Vineyards
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Cristina A. Costa of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP
Defendant: Gnarly Grove Cider Co.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Denise K. LaRue

Complaint:

Miami (OH) Student Apartments sued over ANNEX Trademark

21 Wednesday Sep 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Since 2013, Plaintiff has used the trademark THE ANNEX in connection with nine student housing facilities in three states. Seven of the student housing facilities are in Indiana and one is in Marion, Ohio (one hour north of Columbus). Plaintiff has no trademark registration.

Defendant recently built a student housing facility in Oxford, Ohio (home of the Miami University RedHawks) called, you guessed it, Annex.

With plans to expand to other college towns, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant’s use of a similar name will cause consumer confusion. Unable to resolve their dispute with cease-and-desist communications, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit to assert its rights to THE ANNEX in the Midwest.

Whether they wind up being called “Annex” or not, the new Oxford apartments should do fine. A nice pool and allegedly the largest clubhouse in Oxford. Looking at their Facebook page though, it will be a big shame to lose of all the cool Annex swag. They even have an “Annex”-branded shuttle bus. Based on Plaintiff’s dependence on common law rights and Defendant’s already substantial investment, I could see the Oxford team putting up a strong defense.

Stay tuned for updates.

screen-shot-2016-09-21-at-6-53-25-am

Mecca Companies Inc. d/b/a Annex Student Living v. Trinitas Ventures LLC

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-02499-WTL-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Plaintiff: Mecca Companies Inc. d/b/a Annex Student Living
Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Story LLP
Defendant: Trinitas Ventures
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

ZIG-ZAG looks to smoke out counterfeiters in Indiana

18 Thursday Aug 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

This is an anti-counterfeiting action against an extensive list of defendants who allegedly manufacture, import and sell counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s ZIG-ZAG cigarette papers in Indiana.

As expected, the counterfeit products are “inferior, cheaper versions sold without any known quality control or authorization.”

Stopping counterfeiters is a difficult task and, as seen here, must often be done on a state-by-state basis.

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 7.02.35 AM

North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. et al v. KPC Distributor Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00307-PPS-SLC
File Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Plaintiff: North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc.; National Tobacco Company, L.P.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gregory W. Pottorff, Adam Arceneaux of Ice Miller
Defendant: KPC Distributor Inc. et al.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Copyright Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Fishers sign company sues competitor for cybersquatting

13 Wednesday Jul 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Plaintiff, based in Fishers, Indiana, is in the business of graphic design, sign manufacturing, metal fabrication, and creating promotional material and apparel.

Plaintiff’s website is located at www.eye4group.com.

Defendant is in the business of sign making and associated tools and products and is a direct competitor of Plaintiff in the Indianapolis area.

Defendant allegedly registered the domain “www.eyefourgroup.com” on October 1, 2015 and directed all traffic to its own website. That’s a no-no.

The domain is currently not active.

Screen Shot 2016-07-13 at 4.55.16 PM

Eye 4 Group, LLC v. Indianapolis Sign Works Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01864-JMS-MPB
File Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Plaintiff: Eye 4 Group, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jennifer L. Mozwecz of SRM Law, Joe Duepner of Duepler Law, LLC
Defendant: Indianapolis Sign Works Inc., Andrew Chapman
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Deception, Conversion, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Cybersquatting, Violation of the CyberPiracy Prevention Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Great Divide Brewing sues Red Yeti Brewing over Yeti trademarks

06 Monday Jun 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Denver-based Great Divide Brewing Company has been using the registered trademark YETI in connection with “Beer and Ale” since 2005. Specifically, Great Divide has a range of imperial stouts utilizing the Yeti word mark and a design mark of the outline of a yeti, the pose closely emulating the gait from the famous Bigfoot video. Great Divide’s yeti is usually white on packaging and marketing materials, but sometimes red.

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 6.22.07 AM

Jeffersonville, Indiana-based The Red Yeti, a restaurant/brewpub serving a limited selection of its own beer (currently a porter and hefeweizen), recently celebrated its second anniversary. Their logo is, not surprisingly, a red yeti in the typical walking pose.

Screen Shot 2016-06-06 at 6.17.42 AM

When Red Yeti failed to satisfactorily meet Great Divide’s cessation demands, this lawsuit was filed. Stay tuned for updates.

Great Divide Brewing Company v. Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:16-cv-00084-TWP-DML
File Date: Friday, June 3, 2016
Plaintiff: Great Divide Brewing Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael W. McClain, Robert W. DeWees, III of McClain DeWees, PLLC
Defendant: Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Deceptive Trade Practices
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint: