Tag Archives: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting

Ivy Tech sued for $2 million over use of BLACK COLLEGE EXPO trademark

17 Wednesday May 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The National College Resources Foundation (“NCRF”) is a California-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit and purported owner of the registered BLACK COLLEGE EXPO trademark.

Ivy Tech Community College (“Ivy Tech”), a two-year community college serving over 75 Indiana communities, allegedly used the phrase “Black College Expo” to describe an enrollment event held on its South Bend campus in January 2023. NCRF’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist in December 2022 and Ivy Tech promptly agreed to stop using the phrase but did not do so, apparently using it again in a January 9 Instagram post.

Apparently not satisfied with Ivy Tech’s response (notably during a holiday period when many college employees would not be working or even checking email), NCRF now brings a federal trademark lawsuit against Ivy Tech seeking $2,000,000 as well as punitive damages.

The BLACK COLLEGE EXPO registration is actually owned by a California individual named Theresa Price, apparently the founder and CEO of the National College Resources Foundation. The unsigned Complaint (see below) does not reference any license between Mrs. Price and the organization but presumably that does exist. The registration also includes a disclaimer of the descriptive term “EXPO.”

Should this lawsuit go far enough, I’d expect Ivy Tech and the other defendants to assert that they were not using “BLACK COLLEGE EXPO” as a source-identifying trademark and rather simply as a non-source-identifying descriptive term. However, it’s more likely that the community college (via instructions from its insurance provider) will back down and pay some nominal settlement amount to quickly resolve the lawsuit. The Complaint also includes as defendants two organizations connected to the Ivy Tech event, Mentoring Moments and The Strong Friend. I’m guessing both of those organizations have better ways to spend their funds than fighting a federal lawsuit.

Stay tuned for updates.

National College Resources Foundation v. The Strong Friends LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 3:23-cv-00367-JD-MGG
File Date: May 4, 2023
Plaintiff: National College Resources Foundation
Plaintiff Counsel: Justin A. Smith, Esq. of National College Resources Foundation
Defendant: The Strong Friends LLC, Mentoring Moments, LLC, Ivy Tech Community College
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Descriptions and Representations, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint:

Honest Abe Roofing sues Georgia Couple for Breach of Franchise Agreement, Trademark Infringement

09 Friday Sep 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In April 2021, the Georgia-based defendants in this Indiana lawsuit entered into a Franchise Agreement with Honest Abe, a roof installation corporation located in Terre Haute, Indiana. The franchise relationship did not last long, and Honest Abe send a first Notice of Default in March 2022 asserting several material defaults. Following the failure by defendants to timely cure the defaults, a Notice of Termination was sent to the defendants on May 5, 2022. The defendants allegedly owe the plaintiff around $186,000 in past-due fees. The defendants are also accused of violating their non-compete agreements by starting a competing roofing company in the same geographic area. The Complaint (below) details interactions between an investigator and the defendants in which the defendants continue to refer to themselves as “Honest Abe.”

Honest Abe also requests a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (see Motion below).

Based on the very thorough complaint (with 19 exhibits) and the motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, I expect the defendants will have a big fight on their hands. Pursuant to the Franchise Agreements, the defendants could also be responsible for Honest Abe’s attorney fees and costs, which are probably already substantial.

Stay tuned for updates.

Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 2:22-cv-00387-JRS-MG
File Date: September 7, 2022
Plaintiff: Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: William W. Drummy of Wilkinson Goeller Modesitt Wilkinson & Drummy LLP
Defendants: DCH & Associates, LLC, Honest Abe Roofing of Macon Georgia, LLC, Dameion Harris, Christine Harris
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Breach of Franchise Agreement, Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, Misappropriation of Goodwill
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Mario Garcia

Complaint:

Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction:

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:

Super 8 sues Past Franchisee for Violation of Franchise Agreement

09 Tuesday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Well, at least it’s not another photography copyright case…

But it’s not really much of a trademark case either. The defendants are alleged to have continued using Plaintiff’s trademarks after the expiration of a previous Franchise Agreement.

What does make this case interesting is that it has a long history. The prior owner of the same Auburn, Indiana facility was involved in a similar 2016 lawsuit with Super 8.

How about this assertion in the Complaint? Do you agree? Indisputably?

16. The Super 8® Marks are indisputably among the most famous in the United States.

I can think of many brands (at least 100) more famous than Super 8 motels. But, you go, Super 8.

Super 8 found a resolution last time (new franchisee?) so maybe they’ll do the same this time. Stay tuned for updates.

Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. v. Harvee Properties et al

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-00145
File Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019
Plaintiff: Super 8 Worldwide, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew M. Pendexter, James M. Hinshaw of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
Defendant: Harvee Properties, LLC, Paresh Patel
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

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.