Tag Archives: Declaratory Relief

Lawsuit filed in Indiana over “Genesis” trademark for Window Blinds

30 Thursday Jun 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is a West Lafayette, Indiana-based provider of high-quality window treatments and blinds. The Plaintiff owns a trademark registration for GENESIS in connection with “window blinds, window shades, and venetian blinds,” with a claimed date of first use of April 1, 1994.

The Defendants are Coulisse, a Dutch company (operating out of Miami, Florida) that has been selling window coverings since 1992. Coulisse has begun promoting a line of “Genesis” smart window coverings, consisting of “elegant screens with a focus on functionality.”

Stay tuned for the Defendants’ response, but the easiest solution seems to be a quick rename of their Genesis concept line, which is just one of several available lines. A few promotional documents will require some text change but that’s fairly easily accomplished.

Lafayette Venetian Blind, Inc. v. Coulisse Distribution LLC et al.

Case Number: 4:22-cv-00047
File Date: June 29, 2022
Plaintiff: Lafayette Venetian Blind, Inc. v. Coulisse Distribution LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: William P. Kealey, David M. Stupich of Stuart & Branigin LLP
Defendant: Coulisse Distribution LLC, Coulisse Holding USA Inc.
Cause: Declaratory Relief, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Andrew P. Rodovich

Complaint:

RE/MAX sues Realtor Franchisee for Competing Against His Own Franchises

25 Wednesday Aug 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Apparently all the intellectual property litigators in Indiana took nice long summer vacations, as this is the first new IP lawsuit filed in over two months (since July 22, 2021). After the long wait, the lawsuit we get is mostly about the breakdown of a 10-year franchise relationship.

The Plaintiff is RE/MAX, a global franchisor of real estate brokerage services.

The Defendant is a franchisee accused of numerous violations of the franchise agreement, including actively competing against his own franchises, sending sales associates to a competitor, and enabling competing agents to operate out of RE/MAX locations.

These franchise lawsuits always have two sides, so it’s typically a good idea to read both the Complaint and the Defendant’s Answer for a better picture of how a 10-year franchise relationship breaks down to the point of a lawsuit. Stay tuned for updates.

RE/MAX, LLC et al v. Dulin et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02321-TWP-TAB
File Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2021
Plaintiff: RE/MAX, LLC, RE/MAX Integrated Regions, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Lucy Dollens of Quarles & Brady LLP, Kathryn A. Reilly, Thomas A. Olsen, Chuan (CiCi) Cheng of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP
Defendant: James E. Dulin II, The Hamilton Group, Inc.
Cause: Breach of Contract, Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Declaratory Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Project management company files trademark lawsuit against potential scam artists

09 Monday Oct 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Plaintiff operates a project management training company called “Project Management Academy.” Plaintiff has used the trademark since 2009 and owns several related federal trademark registrations.

The Defendants are accused of operating a similar company (some call it a scam) using the “Project Management Academy” or “PMA” trademarks.

Educate 360, LLC v. Patchree Patchrint et al.

Court Case Number: 4:17-cv-00078
File Date: Friday, October 6, 2017
Plaintiff: Educate 360, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: William P. Kelley, David M. Stupich of Stuart & Branigin LLP
Defendant:  Patchree Patchrint a/k/a Patty Jones and Anthony Christopher Jones
Cause: Declaratory Relief, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Cybersquatting, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Passing Off/Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD
Referred To: TBD

Complaint:

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Stephane Dion v. Allwin Powersports Corp.

08 Tuesday Feb 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Stephane Dion et al v. Allwin Powersports Corporation, Inc. et al

Conventions don’t just bring tourists. They bring lawsuits too!

Dion, a Canadian motorcycle helmet designer, is suing an Illinois corporation whose principal is a Chinese national…in the Southern District of Indiana. What brings this illustrious crowd to our fair Hoosier Halls of Justice? It’s all because of the upcoming Dealer Expo 11.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (see below) to stop Defendant from selling allegedly infringing motorcycle helmets at the upcoming Powersports tradeshow from Feb. 18-20 in Indianapolis.

The two parties had previously operated under a royalty agreement but Defendant apparently stopped making payments in 2010.

There should be some fairly quick updates in this case so check back soon.

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00173-RLY-TAB
File Date: Friday, February 04, 2011
Plaintiff: Stephane Dion, 91934885 Quebec Inc. dba Dion Designs
Plaintiff Counsel: Joseph Peter Rompala, Todd Arthur Richardson of Lewis & Kappes
Defendant: Allwin Powersports Corporation, Inc.
Arthur Liao
MHR Helmet Co. Ltd.
Foshan Shunde Fengxing Helmets Ltd.
Jiangmen Pengcheng Helmets Ltd.
Cause: Violation of Lanham Act, Copyright Infringement, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Breach of Contract, Conversion, Unfair Competition, Declaratory Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

COMPLAINT:

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: