• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: False Advertising

False Advertising Lawsuit filed in Indiana over Paint Roller Cleaners

21 Tuesday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

False Advertising, False Marking, Holly A. Brady, Indiana Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Susan L. Collins

Paint roller cleaners are the subject of the latest Indiana false advertising and trademark lawsuit. More specifically, the lawsuit involves the alleged behavior of defendants that held out a plaintiff’s product as their own while actually selling competing product.

The plaintiff is Roller Ready, LLC of Fort Wayne, Indiana, owner of trademark and patent rights in a ROLLER READY product that cleans paint rollers.

In 2021, Roller Ready agreed to let an individual promote their product at the 2021 National Hardware Show. However, the product was apparently promoted under the brand of another company, Monkey Rung. The product won an award and all resulting recognitions went to Monkey Rung rather than Roller Ready.

Online links about the Roller Ready product point to Monkey Rung’s website with a competing product. Monkey Rung controls, and seemingly won’t relinquish, an Amazon listing for the Roller Ready product. Monkey Rung even listed the Roller Ready product on its own website’s Product Portfolio (see Complaint below).

The defendants are accused of intentionally misleading the public and degrading Roller Ready’s goodwill. Defendants act as if they own the Roller Ready product, so maybe they think they do. There are often two sides to a story, so stay tuned for what will likely be an interesting Answer. The defendants are not from Indiana, so first there could be some jurisdictional challenges.

Roller Ready, LLC v. LA Systems, LLC d/b/a Monkey Rung et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00068-HAB-SLC
File Date: February 14, 2023
Plaintiff: Roller Ready, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Benjamin D. Ice of Barrett McNagny LLP
Defendant: LA Systems, LLC d/b/a Monkey Rung, Paul Kiley
Cause: False Advertising, False Marking, Indiana Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Federal Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Evansville Software Company sues Ex-Developers and their New Employer over Stolen Software Code

01 Tuesday Nov 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Common Law Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement, Declaratory Judgment, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, False Representation, Federal Unfair Competition, Matthew P. Brookman, Reverse Passing Off, Richard L. Young, Tortious Interference

The plaintiff in this lawsuit, MaddenCo, Inc., is an Evansville, Indiana-based software developer. Specifically, they develop software systems for independent tire dealers and truck stop service centers.

The defendants include two ex-employees of the plaintiff, a software development manager and software developer, who have allegedly developed infringing software code for a competing Louisiana company (also a named defendant) in violation of contractual obligations and fiduciary duties. The plaintiff’s software code has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Stay tuned for updates.

MaddenCo Inc. v. Reed et al.

Court Case Number: 3:22-cv-173
File Date: October 31, 2022
Plaintiff: MaddenCo Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael T. McNally of Delk McNally LLP
Defendants: James Reed, Dru Darby, HG AutoTech LLC
Cause: Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Tortious Interference, Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Representation, False Designation of Origin, Reverse Passing Off, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition, Declaratory Judgment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Microsoft sues in Indiana over Phony Tech Support Schemes

28 Monday Feb 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Tanya Walton Pratt, Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Tim A. Baker, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Nearly seven out of ten Americans have encountered a technical support scam in the previous twelve months. Approximately ten percent of those respondents lost money from such scams. That’s not cool.

Microsoft is attempting to crack down on phony Microsoft support scams, in this particular instance focusing on a New Jersey individual operating a shell Indiana company called “Think Global.” The Complaint (below) details the scam and an interaction between Microsoft’s agent (presumably an attorney or technical investigator) and the alleged scammer(s).

The Complaint names an individual, a Mount Laurel, New Jersey resident (the sole member of the Indiana company), so perhaps there will be some justice for all the scammed individuals.

Stay tuned for updates.

Microsoft Corporation v. Solution Hat, LLC d/b/a Think Global et al.

Case Number: 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB
File Date: February 25, 2022
Plaintiff: Microsoft Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Jeff M. Barron of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Bonnie MacNaughton, Meagan Himes of David Wright Tremaine LLP
Defendant: Solution Hat, LLC d/b/a/ Think Global et al,
Cause: Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Trademark Infringement, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Cybersquatting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Carmel-based Autoniq sues Laser Appraiser for False Advertising, Breach of Settlement Agreement

25 Friday Feb 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract, Debra McVicker Lynch, False Advertising, Jane Magnus-Stinson

The plaintiff, Carmel, Indiana-based Autoniq, provides a software solution that allows vehicle dealers to find, research, purchase and price vehicles, both online and at auction.

On January 29, 2021, Autoniq settled a prior lawsuit against the defendant, Laser Appraiser of Watkinsville, Georgia, based on trademark disputes involving deceptive online advertising. The parties signed a settlement agreement which included a $10,000 per breach liquidated damages provision for any future violations.

Apparently the defendant’s marketing department just couldn’t stand not using “Autoniq” in their online ads (along with arguably deceptive information about the plaintiff’s software), as less than a year later, in December 2021, Autoniq discovered new online advertisements by Laser Appraiser that allegedly violate the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. As such, Autoniq has filed this lawsuit based on the new advertisements, but now backed with a $10,000 per breach liquidated damages provision.

Stay tuned for updates.

Autoniq, LLC v. Laser Appraiser, LLC

Case Number: 1:22-cv-00368-JMS-DML
File Date: February 21, 2022
Plaintiff: Autoniq, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Laser Appraiser, LLC
Cause: False Advertising, Breach of Contract
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Mailbox Drone Manufacturer Invites Copyright Infringement Lawsuit by Stealing Product Photographs from Competitor

17 Thursday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Designations of Origin, False Representations, Jane Magnus-Stinson, Mark J. Dinsmore, Reverse Passing Off, Unfair Competition

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit is an Illinois-based manufacturer of smart mailboxes and customized mail delivery drones.

Unfortunately, this copyright infringement lawsuit doesn’t involve the very interesting mailbox and drone technology but instead focuses on two photographs of Plaintiff’s product. The Defendants, a competing drone mailbox company from Indianapolis, allegedly copied the product photographs, make slight modifications to remove Plaintiff’s identifiers, and included the altered photographs in its own presentation materials, including at a major industry trade show.

Reviewing the images included in the Complaint (below), it certainly seems like these are fairly blatant, and slightly ridiculous, instances of copyright infringement. The Complaint also alleges several other claims based on the Defendants’ alleged attempts to “unfairly advance and promote the commercial identity, status and reputation of the Defendant Companies, to solicit the sale of their products and services to customers and potential customers, and to solicit investors, potential investors and partners, in competition with Plaintiff.”

I’m looking forward to the Defendants’ Answer and their possible explanation for the use of the altered photographs. Stay tuned for updates.

Valqari LLC v. Dronedek Corporation et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-01754-JMS-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Plaintiff: Valqari LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate, E. Sahara Williams of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Louis J. Alex of Cook Alex Ltd.
Defendant: Dronedek Corporation, Dronedek LLC, Daniel O’Toole
Cause: Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Representations, False Designations of Origin, Reverse Passing Off, Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd
← Older posts

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (327)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (603)
  • Indianapolis (51)
  • Intellectual Property (662)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (595)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (215)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (369)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (363)
  • 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
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...