Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

Indiana Lawn Care Manufacturer sues eBay Counterfeiter in Northern District of Indiana

09 Monday Oct 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Perma-Green, based in Valparaiso, Indiana, has manufactured and sold commercial lawn care products since 1973. They own an incontestable registration for the trademark PERMAGREEN for “mechanical spreaders and sprayers for the lawn care industry” with a claimed date of first use of February 1, 2005.

“Dr. Permagreen” is an eBay Seller account that lists over 1,400 Perma-Green products, including replacement parts. However, the parts being sold by the eBay account are allegedly low-quality counterfeit copies created in China, not authentic Perma-Green products.

Perma-Green alleges consumer confusion has been caused by the eBay account’s use of a similar name and deceptive product titles, with consumers falsely believing that the eBay account is associated with Perma-Green and that the products originate from Perma-Green. Consumer complaints over defective products were incorrectly directed towards Perma-Green, presumably damaging the goodwill in their brand.

Faulty or defective parts can obviously be a big problem when it comes to lawn care equipment by creating an increased risk of serious injury. After unsuccessful cease-and-desist communications, Perma-Green has brought a lawsuit (see Complaint below) seeking court intervention in an attempt to halt the damage currently being done to its brand. The Complaint alleges willful infringement based on email communications from the alleged operator of the eBay account.

Stay tuned for updates.

Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. v. Dr. Permagreen, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 2:23-cv-00341
File Date: October 6, 2023
Plaintiff: Perma-Green Supreme, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: P.Stephen Fardy, William D. Patterson of Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP
Defendant: Dr. Permagreen, LLC, Michael Edward Klott, FTW Investments LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Advertising, Deceptive Consumer Sales, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

Two Indiana Valve Companies involved in Trade Dress Lawsuit over Yellow Valve Handles

02 Monday Oct 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Banjo Corporation of Crawfordsville, Indiana, designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells control valves for regulating the flow of liquids in hoses and pipes. Since 1994, Banjo’s valves have had distinctive yellow-colored handles. Banjo currently sells approximately 150 types of control valves, all bearing the distinctive yellow handles.

Green Leaf of Fontanet, Indiana, has been selling control valves with green handles since 1983. In 2019, after hiring 2 ex-Banjo employees, Green Leaf launched a line of yellow-handled valves. Green Leaf’s new valve line uses the name TERREMAX.

In a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Indiana, Banjo accuses Green Leaf of violating its trade dress in the yellow valve handles. The name TERREMAX is also allegedly meant to imitate Banjo’s line of TERRE and TERRE KNIFE products. The Complaint (below) details other alleged deceptive conduct by Green Leaf, but we’ll be most interested in watching the trade dress claim for the yellow handle design.

Stay tuned for updates.

Banjo Corporation v. Green Leaf, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-01770-SEB-MG
File Date: September 29, 2023
Plaintiff: Banjo Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Dwight D. Lueck of Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, Jonathan E. Moskin of Foley & Lardner LLP
Defendant: Green Leaf, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designations of Origin, Federal False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Mario Garcia

Complaint:

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: