• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Coach Inc v. Downtown Gift Shop

14 Friday Jun 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorneys' Fees, Christopher A. Nuechterlein, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Unjust Enrichment, Counterfeiting, False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, Forgery, Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Litigation Update, Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement

Coach Inc et al v. Downtown Gift Shop et al

Court Case Number: 3:13-cv-00591-JVB-CAN
File Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013
Plaintiff: Coach Inc, Coach Services Inc
Plaintiff Counsel: Donald A Cole, Ginger Appleberry of Locke Lord LLP
Defendant: Downtown Gift Shop, Chun Ying Huang
Cause: Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Forgery, Counterfeiting, Common Law Unjust Enrichment, Attorneys’ Fees
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Microsoft Corporation v. Mister HardDrive

09 Sunday Jun 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Accounting, Common Law Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, False Description, False Designation of Origin, False Representation, For Imposition Of A Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits, Litigation Update, Tanya Walton Pratt, Trademark Infringement, William G. Hussmann

Defendants are alleged to have advertised, marketed, installed, offered and distributed unauthorized copies of Microsoft software after Microsoft warned them of the consequences, infringing Microsoft’s copyrights and trademarks.

Microsoft Corporation v. Mister HardDrive et al

Court Case Number: 4:13-cv-00079-TWP-WGH
File Date: Thursday, June 06, 2013
Plaintiff: Microsoft Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: James Dimos of Frost Brown Todd LLC
Defendant: Mister Harddrive, Mister HardDrive Wipe and Restore, Mark Cady
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Description and Representation, Common Law Unfair Competition, For Imposition of a Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits, Accounting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Judge: Dark Knight Rises didn’t infringe on CLEAN SLATE trademark

20 Monday May 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Batman, Christopher A. Nuechterlein, Common Law Unfair Competition, First Amendment, Litigation Update, Philip P. Simon, Reverse Confusion, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Judge Philip Simon has ruled that Warner Bros.’s “The Dark Knight Rises” did not infringe on the trademarked name of a computer security program, Clean Slate. As a brief recap, Plaintiff Fortres Grand, an Indiana corporation, has sold security software under the mark CLEAN SLATE since 2000. In Defendant Warner Bros’ latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, Batman promises to obtain a software program called “Clean Slate” that will erase a person’s criminal history from every computer database in the world. This apparently caused hundreds of internet references for the fictional movie software, to which Plaintiff objected, prompting the lawsuit.

Nevertheless, Judge Simon has found no trademark infringement, focusing his opinion (full Opinion and Order below) largely on the doctrine of “reverse confusion.” I’ve provided a few excerpts from the Opinion below but you’ll want to read the full text for the Court’s complete reverse confusion analysis. The Court also rules that Warner Bros.’s use of the term “Clean Slate” is protected by the First Amendment.

There’s an obvious problem with Fortres Grand’s argument that this is a worst-case scenario of reverse confusion: Warner Bros. “clean slate” software only exists in the fictional world of Gotham; it does not exist in reality. This may seem to be a small point, but it has big ramifications for the consumer confusion analysis, which become apparent once you realize the argument that Fortres Grand has not made – and cannot make.

Here, there is simply no plausible claim that consumers will make “mistaken purchasing decisions” about the “tangible product” being sold in the marketplace: no one looking for Fortres Grand’s software is likely to mistakenly buy a ticket to The Dark Knight Rises.

Opinion and Order:

View this document on Scribd

 

 

[View the original Complaint.]

Fortres Grand Corporation v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:12-cv-00535-PPS-CAN
File Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Plaintiff: Fortres Grand Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher R. Putt of May Oberfell Lorber
Defendant: Warner Bros Entertainment Inc.
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Trial Scheduled for Indiana’s First Keyword Advertising Case

09 Thursday May 2013

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Social Media, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Angie's List, Common Law Unfair Competition, Keyword Advertising, Litigation Update, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Sarah Evans Barker, Tim A. Baker, Trade Disparagement, Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment

Indiana’s first keyword advertising case is now set for trial. However, don’t hold your breath if you’re waiting for an answer to whether the purchase and use of a competitor’s trademark in keyword advertising is trademark infringement. The Angie’s List/ServiceMagic trial won’t take place for over a year.

On May 6, a Scheduling Order set a bench trial for October 6, 2014 (at 9:30 AM in Room #216, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana before Judge Sarah Evans Barker). A settlement conference was held  between the parties in February 2013 but no settlement was reached. Based on the importance of this question to the parties involved, I expect this case to go to trial, however long that may take.

In the meantime, you can review the Answer to Complaint and Answer to Counterclaims below. Stay tuned for updates.

DEFENDANT SERVICEMAGIC, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS:

View this document on Scribd

ANGIE’S LIST’S ANSWER TO SERVICEMAGIC’S COUNTERCLAIMS:

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Manchester University v. Sportswear

24 Wednesday Apr 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Description, False Designation of Origin, False Representation, Litigation Update, Robert L. Miller, Roger B. Cosbey, Trademark Infringement

Manchester University Inc v. Sportswear Inc

Court Case Number: 1:13-cv-00120-RLM-RBC
File Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Plaintiff: Manchester University Inc
Plaintiff Counsel: D Randall Brown of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Sportswear Inc
Cause: Trademark Infringement; False Designation of Origin, False Description, and/or False Representation; Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition,
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey

View this document on Scribd
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (329)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (605)
  • Indianapolis (52)
  • Intellectual Property (666)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (598)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (216)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (370)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (367)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    Join 81 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar