Tag Archives: False Advertising

Microsoft sues in Indiana over Phony Tech Support Schemes

28 Monday Feb 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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:

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

25 Friday Feb 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

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:

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

17 Thursday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

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:

Equestrian Arena Equipment Manufacturer Sues Competitor for Breach of Contract, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

13 Tuesday Apr 2021

Posted by in Business Law, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Patent, Southern District of Indiana, Trade Secret, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Here’s an interesting lawsuit, which seems like it wants to be a patent lawsuit but instead is masquerading as a breach of contract or trade secret lawsuit.

In September 2016, the parties allegedly into a “Product Lines Purchase Agreement,” by which the Plaintiff purchased “all specifications, shop drawings, blueprints, records and intellectual property rights” relating to the Kiser DragMaster and Kiser Edge, equipment used for grooming and maintaining equestrian arenas.

Despite selling the intellectual property for those products to Plaintiff as a part of the deal, the Defendants are now accused of selling knockoff products, although under different product names. It seems that what Plaintiff really wants to do is prevent the sale of competing products, but they don’t have any patents to truly protect their product designs. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawyers had to get creative and try to bring breach of contract, trademark, and trade secret claims.

Apparently, representatives of the Defendants have referred to the Defendants’ products as a “redesign” of Plaintiff’s DragMaster. Even if true, the Defendants could claim a nominative fair use defense, as such references seem to actually be referring to old DragMaster products. The law around comparative advertising is pretty well-settled in favor of consumer knowledge, absent evidence of false endorsement. Competitors comparing a new product to an older competing product via name is typically allowed.

By way of example, the Complaint (below) contains the following diagram comparing the Defendants’ “Kiser 1000” to the Plaintiff’s “ABI DragMaster”:

Similarly, the “Kiser 200” is compared to the “ABI Edge”:

These are the types of comparison drawings you’d typically see in a patent lawsuit. All of the features being compared are utilitarian product features. The product names (i.e. trademarks) aren’t compared because they aren’t similar at all…Kiser 1000 vs. ABI DragMaster.

Proving a breach of contract or misappropriation of trade secrets will necessarily depend on proving that the Defendants’ products are actually infringing on the intellectual property owned by Plaintiff. Without any prior patent protection, that could be difficult to do in this context.

Stay tuned to see how the Defendants respond, perhaps with a Motion to Dismiss for some of the claims.

ABI Attachments, Inc. v. Kiser Arena Specialists, Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00890-SEB-DLP
File Date: Monday, April 12, 2021
Plaintiff: ABI Attachments, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: James M. Lewis, Michael J. Hays of Tuesley Hall Konopa LLP
Defendant: Kiser Arena Specialists, Inc., Robert D. Kiser, James Kiser
Cause: Breach of Contract, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Lanham Act Violations, False Designation, False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Misappropriation, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Doris L. Pryor

Complaint:

Splenda Manufacturer sues Speedway Gas Stations over Knock-off Chinese Sweetener

10 Wednesday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Splenda®-loving Speedway patrons beware! Or not.

In the second gas station-related lawsuit this week, Speedway gas stations are accused of providing knock-off Chinese-manufactured Splenda, the well-known sugar substitute sweetener. For our health-minded blog readers who don’t touch the stuff or just crave real sugar, Splenda sweetener is actually sucralose, a low-calorie sugar-substitute first approved by the FDA in 1998.

Splenda’s manufacturer claims trade dress protection for sucralose sold in yellow packets, of which diner-frequenters, coffee and tea drinkers probably recognize:

Speedway is accused of providing knock-off Chinese sucralose sweetener in yellow packaging at their gas station coffee kiosks. The Plaintiff asserts that “Speedway’s yellow-colored packets are not provided to customers with sufficient cues to the consumer to prevent the mistaken belief by consumers that the yellow packets are in fact SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener.”

Blog readers, would you see the above packet at a coffee kiosk and automatically assume that it is Splenda®? If so, reach out to Plaintiff’s attorney, because that’s the basis of this lawsuit. (Aside: Did you know there are over 50 shades of yellow?)

Splenda’s manufacturer asserts trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and dilution claims against Speedway. This will be an interesting case to follow, with both parties being fairly large companies, and presumably with Speedway gas stations already providing their yellow “knock-off” sweetener widely. Not being a coffee drinker (although married to one), I can only guess at what goes through the coffee drinker’s mind before consuming that cherished travel-sized cup of lukewarm gas station bitter brown water, but I really wonder if they are confused by the yellow packaging or whether they care at all. I suspect coffee drinkers grabbing a free packet of sweetener from a gas station kiosk don’t care at all what type of sucralose they’re ingesting, so long as the delivery medium is decently warm and caffeinated. Speedway’s packaging does not mention “Splenda” whatsoever, just listing ingredients of dextrose and sucralose. Apparently, it’s the use of the color yellow (but which yellow?) that bought Speedway this lawsuit.

A fairly easy potential compromise would be for Speedway to provide their sucralose sweetener in non-yellow packaging, but I’m guessing Speedway will decide to challenge Splenda’s asserted monopoly over the color yellow for sweeteners. Splenda’s arguably broad trade dress might need to be narrowed to a certain yellow shade (or shades), rather than the entire spectrum of yellow.

Either way, this lawsuit will be interesting to follow…stay tuned for updates.

Heartland Consumer Products LLC v. Speedway, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00322-JMS-TAB
File Date: February 8, 2021
Plaintiff: Heartland Consumer Products LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Holiday W. Banta, Jessa DeGroote, Alice Kelly of ICE MILLER LLP
Defendant: Speedway, LLC
Cause: Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, False or Misleading Representation of Fact, False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, State Trademark Dilution
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint: