Tag Archives: Federal False Designation of Origin

Poulsen files Trademark Lawsuit in Indiana over Counterfeit “Ingrid Bergman” Roses

15 Thursday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet –William Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet

Poulsen Roser is a family-owned Danish company world-famous for its breeding of distinctive rose varieties, for which it obtains patent and trademark protection. A lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of Indiana involving their INGRID BERGMAN rose, a “unique currant red hybrid tea rose variety.” Poulsen owns a U.S. trademark registration for INGRID BERGMAN in connection with “live roses.”

The Defendants operate one of the U.S.’s largest wholesale rose growers, distributing flowers to garden centers, nurseries, and mail order outlets.

This lawsuit arises because the Defendants are allegedly producing, advertising, selling, and distributing unauthorized roses using the Poulsen’s INGRID BERGMAN mark. Further bibliographical information on the Defendants’ website about their “counterfeit” roses (see screenshot) might suggest to consumers that they are in fact authentic Poulsen roses.

Surely this situation can’t be as cut and dried as the Complaint (below) would imply. A large wholesale grower like the Defendants would certainly understand the implications of selling unauthorized rose varieties and know they couldn’t escape detection. We’ll have to stay tuned for their Answer and another possible side of the story.

Poulsen Roser A/S vs. Gardens Alive, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 4:21-cv-00113-SEB-DML
File Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2021
Plaintiff: Poulsen Roser A/S
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Gardens Alive, Inc., Early Morning LLC d/b/a Weeks Roses
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competion, Federal False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conversion, Theft
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

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:

Three Floyds Brewing sues Floyd’s Spiked Beverages for Trademark Infringement

26 Thursday Sep 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Three Floyds Brewing is one of Indiana’s longest operating breweries, selling nationally-recognized delicious beers under the trademark THREE FLOYDS since 1996.

In 2018, the defendant Floyd’s Spiked Beverages began selling Spiked Lemonade and Spiked Ice Tea under the FLOYD’S trademark. The Defendants’ apparently lower quality beverages are sold within 20 miles of the Three Floyds brewery in Munster, Indiana. The Defendants also sell their product via a website at DrinkFloyds.com.

Three Floyds is already opposing one of Floyd’s trademark applications that claims “Alcoholic beverages, except beer.” The USPTO has refused Floyd’s other trademark application for “Beer-based coolers” based on a likelihood of confusion with Three Floyds’ registered trademarks.

The Complaint (below) spotlights several poor consumer reviews of the Defendants’ spiked beverages, but doesn’t mention any instances of actual consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for updates.

Three Floyds Brewing LLC v. Floyd’s Spiked Beverages LLC et al.

Court Case Number:  2:19-cv-00363
File Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Plaintiff: Three Floyds Brewing LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Glenn A. Rice, Esq., Carter S. Plotkin, Esq. of Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd.
Defendant: Floyd’s Spiked Beverages LLC, Lawrence Trachtenbroit
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD

Complaint: 

Counterfeit Bongs dominate the February Indiana IP Litigation Docket

01 Friday Mar 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Two photography cases, including one from serial filer Richard Bell, and a breach of franchise agreement lawsuit…other than that, the February Indiana IP litigation docket was totally dominated by filings by RooR International. RooR’s defendants are Indiana smokeshops and their alleged sale of counterfeit bongs.

RooR markets itself as “the premier manufacturer of glass water pipes by emphasizing the brand’s unwavering use of quality materials and focusing on scientific principles which facilitate a superior smoking experience.”

As you can see from the screenshot below, RooR International has gone on a recent filing spree to combat the sale of counterfeit products:

Screen Shot 2019-03-01 at 9.18.39 AM.png

RooR’s defendants, small smoke and vape shops from across Indiana, are accused of Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin and Federal Unfair Competition. Heavy stuff.

Sample RooR Complaint

The other non-bong, non-Bell cases involve the breach of a franchise agreement and the unauthorized use of a photograph of a New Year’s Eve fireworks display.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC, BR IP Holder LLC v. Big Scoops, Inc., David M. Glasgow Jr.

Bachner v. USA Halloween Planet Inc.