Tag Archives: Federal False Advertising

Tempur Sealy sues Valparaiso Furniture Store for Trademark Infringement

14 Tuesday Nov 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

A furniture store in Valparaiso, Indiana is accused of the unauthorized use of the Tempur-Pedic® trademark. The store had been an authorized dealer of Tempur-Pedic products until February 2, 2023, when the dealer relationship was terminated by Tempur Sealy. Upon termination of the relationship, the store was to cease all use of Tempur Sealy’s trademarks.

Despite multiple warnings by Tempur Sealy, the Complaint (below) details continued use by the furniture store, at least through August 27, 2023, of the Tempur-Pedic trademark on point-of-sale materials in the store, on exterior windows, and on the store’s website.

The Valparaiso store is alleged to have continued use of the Tempur-Pedic trademark “to attract customers for the purpose of selling non-authorized and competing products in a manner that falsely suggests and implies to consumers that Defendant maintains a relationship with Tempur Sealy as an authorized retailer.”

Stay tuned for updates.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v. Luxury Mattress & Furniture, LLC

Court Case Number: 2:23-cv-00383-PPS-APR
File Date: November 9, 2023
Plaintiff: Tempur Sealy International, Inc., Tempur-Pedic Management, Inc., Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Tempur World, LCC, Dan-Foam APS, Sealy Technology LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: James N. Martin, Jr. of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
Defendants: Luxury Mattress & Furniture, LLC d/b/a Luxury Mattress & Furniture
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Advertising, Federal Trademark Dilution
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Andrew P. Rodovich

Complaint:

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:

Georgia Used Car Dealership Software Company Sued for “Repeated and Brazen Actions”

20 Tuesday Oct 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Defendant in this lawsuit, a used car dealership management software company from Georgia, is accused of “repeated and brazen actions…designed to deceive and sow confusion in the marketplace.” Among the alleged actions of Defendant are illegitimate procurement of Plaintiff’s proprietary Run Lists (i.e. “lists containing information regarding automobile auctions”), use of a “bastardized” version of Plaintiff’s logo, and falsely claiming affiliation with Plaintiff.

The Defendant is also accused of inappropriately using Plaintiff’s AUTONIQ trademark in keyword advertising. The Defendant further used the AUTONIQ trademark in a deceptive email campaign which caused Plaintiff to receive inquiries from confused consumers.

Is it just me, or does the “bastardized” logo (see Complaint paragraph 23) actually look more like a goose rather than a “lower in quality” version of the Plaintiff’s eagle?

I’ll reserve judgment until the Answer is filed, as complaints can’t be relied on for the entire story, but this paints the picture of a Defendant who is willing to flout trademark law for a perceived competitive advantage.

Stay tuned for updates.

Adesa, Inc. and Autoniq, LLC v. Laser Appraiser, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:20-cv-02433-RLY-MJD
File Date: September 21, 2020
Plaintiff: Adesa, Inc., Autoniq, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Laser Appraiser, LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Conversion
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint: