Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

LaPorte Video Game Arcade sued for Trademark Infringement

27 Thursday Jul 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Full Tilt Arcade & Pinball is a video game arcade in LaPorte, Indiana. It was opened by two friends in October 2022.

Unfortunately for Full Tilt, Nickels and Dimes Incorporated of Celina, Texas, has been using the TILT trademark in connection with video game arcades since 1977. There have been over 200 “Tilt” locations nationwide and 2 in Australia. Nickels and Dimes also uses the TILT STUDIO and TILTED 10 trademarks for larger entertainment facilities.

Alleging trademark infringement, Nickels and Dimes sent a cease-and-desist letter to Full Tilt on June 22, 2023, to which Full Tilt responded that it would not comply. Undaunted, Nickels and Dimes now seeks intervention from the Federal Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

Stay tuned for updates.

Nickels and Dimes Incorporated v. Noah’s Arcade, LLC d/b/a Full Tilt et al.

Court Case Number: 3:23-cv-00699-DRL-MGG
File Date: July 25, 2023
Plaintiff: Nickel and Dimes Incorporated
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP
Defendant: Noah’s Arcade, LLC d/b/a Full Tilt, Ben Konowitz, Ryan Hart
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge:  Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint:

Buttermilk Café vs. Buttermilk Pancake House…are you confused?

27 Thursday Apr 2023

Posted by in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The plaintiff in Indiana’s latest trademark lawsuit owns three restaurants called Buttermilk Café in the Chicago metropolitan area, along with a federal trademark registration for BUTTERMILK CAFE (Reg. No. 5,888,702) claiming “restaurant services, in International Class 43,” with a date of first use in 2011. Notably, it is a concurrent use registration with another restaurant called Buttermilk Kitchen, based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Since at least 2019, the defendant has operated a restaurant called Buttermilk Pancake House in Munster, Indiana.

The Complaint (below) doesn’t mention any actual instances of consumer confusion. You might think if Buttermilk Café and Buttermilk Kitchen can co-exist, then surely there’s room in the marketplace for a Buttermilk Pancake House, particularly in a crowded field like restaurants, with over 1,000,000 operating restaurant locations in the U.S. However, Munster, Indiana is about 30 miles from Chicago, so proximity may be the plaintiff’s greatest concern in this situation. That’s close enough that both parties’ restaurants would inevitably show up in a map search for either restaurant. It’s close enough that consumers might think the “Pancake House” is an offshoot of the nearby “Café.” The Munster restaurant utilizes a different color and font for “Buttermilk” and “Pancake House” on their exterior signage, a marketing practice often used with a “family mark” and a new descriptive product/service name. This could arguably lead consumers to believing that there is a connection between the parties. However, other than use of a similar name, there’s no other evidence in the Complaint (e.g. similar logo, menu, interior design, color scheme, etc.) that the Munster restaurant is intentionally misrepresenting itself to be connected with the plaintiff’s restaurant.

Stay tuned for updates.

Sak Group, Inc. v. Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc.

Court Case Number: 2:23-cv-00142-PPS-JPK
File Date: April 25, 2023
Plaintiff: Sak Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael E. Tolbert, Shelice R. Tolbert, Candace C. Williams of Tolbert & Tolbert, LLC
Defendant: Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Passing Off, Federal Unfair Competition, Trademark Dilution, Violation of the Indiana Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint:

Trademark Owner Successfully Overcomes USPTO 2(d) Refusal but Still Gets Sued

17 Monday Apr 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This lawsuit highlights an awkward but common situation where a senior trademark owner and the USPTO disagree on whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two trademarks. If a junior user’s trademark is allowed to be registered by the USPTO, sometimes a senior user has no option but to bring a federal lawsuit and/or a TTAB cancellation proceeding.

HealthSmart Foods, an Evansville, Indiana-based producer of health food snacks (e.g. snack bars, snack bites, shakes, and candies) has filed a trademark lawsuit against Sweet Nothings, a small California company selling healthy family snacks like packaged smoothies and “nut butter bites.”

HealthSmart Foods sells a line of snack clusters, crisps and patties called SWEET NOTHINGS.

Sweet Nothings has obtained a trademark registration for its SWEET NOTHINGS trademark after successfully overcoming a 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal citing the HealthSmart Foods’ trademark registration. The 2(d) refusal was seemingly overcome with evidence that the “SWEET NOTHINGS” trademark is very highly suggestive of the type of goods and therefore entitled to a very narrow scope of protection. Specifically, the evidence consisted of fourteen examples of entities in HealthSmart’s industry who use the marks “SWEET NOTHINGS” or “SWEET NOTHING” as a source indicator in connection with goods and services legally identical to HealthSmart’s goods:

  • Sweet Nothing Desserts, LLC – Located in Georgia, they bake cakes and cookies to order
  • Sweet Nothing Fine Cakes and Desserts – Located in Wisconsin, they bake high quality
  • cakes
  • Sweet Nothings Cake Shop – Located in Southern California, they offer a variety of
  • baked goods
  • Sweet Nothings Cakes – Located in Wisconsin, they bake cakes for special occasions
  • Sweet Nothings – Located in Ohio, they offer a variety of snacks
  • Sweet Nothings Cookies – Located in Arkansas, they offer custom cookies
  • Sweet Nothings Custom Cookies – Located in North Carolina, they offer custom cookies
  • Luv Ice Cream – Located in Minnesota, they offer “Sweet Nothings” branded fruit and
  • candy
  • Sweet Nothings – Located in New Jersey, they offer a variety of chocolates and candy
  • Sweet Nothings Snacks – Located in Utah, they offer a variety of snacks
  • Sweet Nothings – a brand of nougat cluster candy offered by Healthsmart, located in Indiana
  • Krissy’s Sweet Nothings – an online business that offers cakes
  • Sweet Nothings & Pastries – Located in Texas, they offer a variety of cupcakes and cakes
  • Sweet Nothings Cakes and Confections – Located in Missouri, they offer a variety of
  • cupcakes, cakes, pastries, and pies

HealthSmart Foods clearly does not agree with the USPTO’s decision to register Sweet Nothings’ trademark and now seeks the intervention of the Southern District of Indiana. I’d expect a similar “very highly suggestive” and “narrow scope of protection” defense to be presented, arguing that the Indiana company simply doesn’t have a strong enough trademark to enforce. Based on the location of the defendant (California), we might also see some preliminary jurisdictional challenges. Or, if the defendant doesn’t have the stomach for a legal fight in federal court in Indiana, a quick name change could be a potential outcome.

Stay tuned for updates.

HealthSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 3:23-cv-00060
File Date: April 13, 2023
Plaintiff: HealthSmart Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Joshua A. Claybourn of Jackson Kelly PLLC
Defendant: Beth Porter, Sweet Nothings, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Injury to Business Reputation
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Freedom Mortgage (with Roundpoint subsidiary) sues Freedompoint for Trademark Infringement

17 Friday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit, Freedom Mortgage Corporation, has been providing mortgage banking services using its FREEDOM MORTGAGE trademark since December 1992. Freedom Mortgage also has a wholly owned subsidiary called Roundpoint which has provided mortgage banking services since January 2009.

In April 2021, the defendant, Freedompoint, LLC, began using the trademark FREEDOMPOINT in connection with mortgage banking services. The FREEDOMPOINT trademark was registered with the USPTO in August 2021 having received no “likelihood of confusion” refusal during the application process.

It seems that Freedom Mortgage disagrees with the USPTO, believing that there does exist a likelihood of confusion, considering FREEDOMPOINT to be an infringing combination of the FREEDOM MORTGAGE and ROUNDPOINT marks.

The combination argument is interesting, perhaps suggesting that consumers would incorrectly surmise that Freedom Mortgage, owner of the Roundpoint subsidiary, had simply merged the two companies. However, do consumers even know that Roundpoint is a wholly owned subsidiary of Freedom Mortgage? I reviewed both the Freedom Mortgage and Roundpoint websites and don’t see any mentions of the other company.

If consumers don’t have any reason to associate Roundpoint with Freedom Mortgage, then really there are just two applicable comparisons…Freedom Mortgage v. Freedompoint and Roundpoint vs. Freedompoint. The USPTO didn’t consider either to be confusingly similar but perhaps more “combination” evidence will be available for this lawsuit.

Stay tuned for Freedompoint’s Answer.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Freedompoint, LLC

Court Case Number: 4:23-cv-00022-TWP-KMB
File Date: February 14, 2023
Plaintiff: Freedom Mortgage Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Freedompoint, LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Cancellation of U.S. Registration, Deception, Conversion, Forgery, Counterfeiting, Theft
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Kellie M. Barr

Complaint:

USA Football sues USA Flag for Trademark Infringement

16 Thursday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

USA Football organizes football training events for players, coaches, and officials. USA Football was endowed by the National Football League and the National Football League Players Association in 2002.

USA Football has filed a lawsuit in Indiana attempting to prevent the use of the mark USA FLAG in connection with flag football tournaments and leagues. The parties to the lawsuit have a lengthy history, with Defendant Burnett first approaching USA Football in 2017 about a potential collaboration. Over the following years, the relationship involved both a Consulting Agreement and an Event Collaboration Agreement between the parties. However, per the Complaint (below), USA Football always maintained that the USA FLAG mark could not be used, previously opposing a USA FLAG trademark application.

Unable to successfully persuade/convince USA Flag to stop using an allegedly confusingly similar trademark, USA Football now seeks court intervention, including requests for injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. As USA Flag seems dug into its position, this lawsuit could get interesting. USA Flag previously chose not to defend in the trademark opposition proceeding, resulting in a notice of default. Surely USA Flag won’t attempt that same strategy in federal court. Stay tuned for updates.

USA Football, Inc. v. Flag Football World Championship Tour, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00274-TWP-KMB
File Date: February 13, 2023
Plaintiff: USA Football, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Amie N. Peele of Peele Law Group, PC; Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendants: Flag Football World Championship Tour, LLC, USA Flag, LLC, Travis Burnett
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Vicarious Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment, Conversion, Deception, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Kellie M. Barr

Complaint: