Tag Archives: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting

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.

Hoverboard Maker Swagway Sued by UL for Trademark Counterfeiting

19 Friday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

If you live anywhere near an electrical outlet (meaning all of you except those few remaining readers of the Indiana IP Zine), you’ve likely seen the Plaintiff’s trademark.

Plaintiff’s UL Certification Marks appear on “billions of household, consumer, commercial, and industrial products including refrigeration equipment, lighting products, cable, wiring, building materials, life safety vests, electric signs, batteries and power packs for computers and consumer electronics, traffic signals, sprinklers, and cash registers.”

The “UL” mark certifies that the product has been tested, inspected and satisfies applicable safety standards. Turn over whatever electrical device is closest and the “UL” probably is on there somewhere. (If not, back away slowly…) 

Defendant makes and sells the explosively popular Swagway hoverboard. Despite having never been tested nor inspected by UL, the Swagway product “allegedly used a mark that is identical to or substantially indistinguishable from the UL Certification Marks to falsely suggest that their Swagway hoverboard products have been tested, inspected, and certified by Plaintiff.”

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 6.13.13 AM

Further claims by Defendant’s CEO that the product was UL-certified along with significant safety concerns about the product, detailed in the Complaint below, led to this lawsuit.

UL LLC v. Swagway, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00075-RLM-CAN
File Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Plaintiff: UL LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Thomas F. Waggoner of Straub, Seamen & Allen, P.C.
Defendant: Swagway, LLC, Jianqing “Johnny” Zhu
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Complaint: