Tag Archives: Contributory Trademark Infringement

BioSweep vs. BioClean…are you confused?

01 Tuesday May 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Defendants in this lawsuit are accused of violating the non-compete provisions of a terminated Franchise Agreement, as well as operating the competing business with a confusingly similar trademark, BioClean vs. the Plaintiff’s registered BioSweep trademark.

The Defendants allegedly also still claim to use Plaintiff’s “BioSweep System” equipment on their website, creating a false impression of a relationship with Plaintiff, and reference their competing company as “BioSweep of the Gulf Coast” in at least one instance.

Stay tuned for updates.

Phocatox Technologies, LLC v. Wiersig et al.

Court Case Number: 1:18-cv-01298-WTL-DML
File Date: Friday, April 27, 2018
Plaintiff: Phocatox Technologies, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Bryan S. Redding, Britton A. Jared of Redding Law, LLC
Defendants: Jerry D. Wiersig, Todd M. Hoffman, BioClean Remediation, LLC (AL), and BioClean Remediation, LLC (OK)
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Breach of Franchise Agreement, Conspiracy, Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

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:

Coop v. Co-op phonetic similarity fuels trademark dispute

02 Monday May 2016

Posted by in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff is a farmer owned cooperative which operates an oil exploration, production, refining, and marketing company. They have used their registered CO-OP trademark since at least 1991.

Defendant is a fuel company called Coop (pronounced Co-op) Fuels. They were first contacted by Plaintiff two weeks ago regarding their confusingly similar trademark and, apparently, did not act quickly enough to change their name.

Screen Shot 2016-05-02 at 12.38.25 PMNote the Defendant’s website is currently down and its Facebook page has announced “big changes coming,” so perhaps a name change is already underway. Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-05-02 at 12.34.44 PM

Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC v. Coop Fuels, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00972-SEB-MPB
File Date: Friday, April 29, 2016
Plaintiff: Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: David K. Herzog, Amie Peele Carter, Louis T. Perry of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: Coop Fuels, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception, Conversion, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Jasper-based Kimball International files lawsuit to enforce KIMBALL trademark

27 Wednesday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff, Kimball International, Inc., has been selling furniture under the KIMBALL trademark since 1970. Plaintiff owns several trademark registrations, including the following:

Screen Shot 2016-04-27 at 8.50.57 AM

According to the Complaint (below), it was recently brought to Plaintiff’s attention that Defendant, a California-based furniture importer and distributor, had also begun selling “KIMBALL” furniture through its own website and retail partners.

Screen Shot 2016-04-27 at 8.42.40 AM

A cease-and-desist letter was sent by Plaintiff on March 29, 2016, apparently to no effect. Stay tuned for updates.

KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COA, INC.

Court Case Number: 3:2016-cv-00054 840
File Date: Monday, April 25, 2016
Plaintiff: Kimball International, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: COA, Inc. d/b/a Coaster Company of America
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception, Conversion, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Michael P. Brookman

Complaint:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Sprint Solutions et al v. Reginald Aldridge et al

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Plaintiff Sprint accuses three defendants of profiting from the illegal acquisition and resale of new Sprint phones. The Complaint is lengthy, detailing both Sprint’s business model and the Defendants’ alleged “Bulk Handset Theft and Trafficking Scheme,” in addition to fourteen claims. Presumably, in addition to civil penalties, the actions alleged by the Plaintiffs could also result in criminal penalties for Defendants.

Sprint Solutions, Inc. et al v. Reginald Aldridge et al

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00128-TWP-DML
File Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Plaintiff: Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint Communications Company LP, Boost Worldwide, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Matthew B. Millis, John D. Waller of Wooden & McLaughlin LLP
Defendant: Reginald Aldridge, Arrice Aldridge, Damion Transou
Cause: Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with Business Relationships and Prospective Advantage, Civil Conspiracy, Unjust Enrichment, Conspiracy to Induce Breach of Contract, Common Law Fraud, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Trafficking in Computer Passwords, Unauthorized Access, Unauthorized Access with Intent to Defraud, Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, False Advertising, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Conversion
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch