Tag Archives: Federal Trademark Dilution

Trademark Owner Successfully Overcomes USPTO 2(d) Refusal but Still Gets Sued

17 Monday Apr 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This lawsuit highlights an awkward but common situation where a senior trademark owner and the USPTO disagree on whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two trademarks. If a junior user’s trademark is allowed to be registered by the USPTO, sometimes a senior user has no option but to bring a federal lawsuit and/or a TTAB cancellation proceeding.

HealthSmart Foods, an Evansville, Indiana-based producer of health food snacks (e.g. snack bars, snack bites, shakes, and candies) has filed a trademark lawsuit against Sweet Nothings, a small California company selling healthy family snacks like packaged smoothies and “nut butter bites.”

HealthSmart Foods sells a line of snack clusters, crisps and patties called SWEET NOTHINGS.

Sweet Nothings has obtained a trademark registration for its SWEET NOTHINGS trademark after successfully overcoming a 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal citing the HealthSmart Foods’ trademark registration. The 2(d) refusal was seemingly overcome with evidence that the “SWEET NOTHINGS” trademark is very highly suggestive of the type of goods and therefore entitled to a very narrow scope of protection. Specifically, the evidence consisted of fourteen examples of entities in HealthSmart’s industry who use the marks “SWEET NOTHINGS” or “SWEET NOTHING” as a source indicator in connection with goods and services legally identical to HealthSmart’s goods:

  • Sweet Nothing Desserts, LLC – Located in Georgia, they bake cakes and cookies to order
  • Sweet Nothing Fine Cakes and Desserts – Located in Wisconsin, they bake high quality
  • cakes
  • Sweet Nothings Cake Shop – Located in Southern California, they offer a variety of
  • baked goods
  • Sweet Nothings Cakes – Located in Wisconsin, they bake cakes for special occasions
  • Sweet Nothings – Located in Ohio, they offer a variety of snacks
  • Sweet Nothings Cookies – Located in Arkansas, they offer custom cookies
  • Sweet Nothings Custom Cookies – Located in North Carolina, they offer custom cookies
  • Luv Ice Cream – Located in Minnesota, they offer “Sweet Nothings” branded fruit and
  • candy
  • Sweet Nothings – Located in New Jersey, they offer a variety of chocolates and candy
  • Sweet Nothings Snacks – Located in Utah, they offer a variety of snacks
  • Sweet Nothings – a brand of nougat cluster candy offered by Healthsmart, located in Indiana
  • Krissy’s Sweet Nothings – an online business that offers cakes
  • Sweet Nothings & Pastries – Located in Texas, they offer a variety of cupcakes and cakes
  • Sweet Nothings Cakes and Confections – Located in Missouri, they offer a variety of
  • cupcakes, cakes, pastries, and pies

HealthSmart Foods clearly does not agree with the USPTO’s decision to register Sweet Nothings’ trademark and now seeks the intervention of the Southern District of Indiana. I’d expect a similar “very highly suggestive” and “narrow scope of protection” defense to be presented, arguing that the Indiana company simply doesn’t have a strong enough trademark to enforce. Based on the location of the defendant (California), we might also see some preliminary jurisdictional challenges. Or, if the defendant doesn’t have the stomach for a legal fight in federal court in Indiana, a quick name change could be a potential outcome.

Stay tuned for updates.

HealthSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 3:23-cv-00060
File Date: April 13, 2023
Plaintiff: HealthSmart Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Joshua A. Claybourn of Jackson Kelly PLLC
Defendant: Beth Porter, Sweet Nothings, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Injury to Business Reputation
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

AAA sues Anderson’s All American Auto for Trademark Infringement, Cybersquatting

24 Thursday Mar 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is the American Automobile Association (AAA), i.e. that card in your wallet that you only pull out when you get a flat tire or lock your keys in the car. I’m actually surprised to read in the Complaint (below) that AAA has only 60 million members. I figured just about every driving American (231 million Americans held valid driving licenses in 2020) had a membership. For the low price of an annual membership, AAA is an absolute bargain when you’re stuck on the side of the highway far from home. Importantly for this lawsuit, AAA claims to also offer auto repair services.

The defendant is an Anderson, Indiana-based company with the patriotic name “All American Auto Hail Repair” using the internet domains AAA-HAILDENT-REPAIR.BUSINESS.SITE and AAAHAILDENTREPAIR.COM to advertise its services. The defendant is a small garage providing automobile dent removal services.

The defendant might challenge whether AAA really offers auto repairs under the AAA brands, or whether automobiles are just towed away by AAA trucks to have repairs performed by third-party repair companies. However, despite the surprisingly low number of members, AAA will still likely be considered a “famous” brand, which could grant it broader protection for ancillary goods/services like auto dent repairs.

It seems like a quick resolution, although perhaps legally unnecessary, would be for the defendant to just select a different domain name(s). AllAmericanAutoDentRepair.com is available right now, just sayin’. Some fights aren’t worth fighting.

Stay tuned for updates.

The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. All American Auto Hail Dent Repair LLC d/b/a AAA Hail Repair et al.

Case Number: 1:22-cv-00568-JPH-MJD
File Date: March 23, 2022
Plaintiff: The American Automobile Association, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: David O. Tittle, Elizabeth S. Traylor of Dentons Bingham Greenebaum LLP
Defendant: All American Auto Hail Dent Repair LLC d/b/a AAA Hail Repair, Lavern Pflugh
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting, Federal Trademark Dilution, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Indiana Trademark Dilution, Indiana Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

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:

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:

Dispute over TERMINATOR fireworks name leads to trademark lawsuit

08 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This lawsuit involves a lengthy dispute, dating back almost two decades, over the ability to use the TERMINATOR trademark in connection with fireworks.

The Defendants apparently are using the TERMINATOR trademark pursuant to a license (which Plaintiff claims is invalid) so I’ll wait to see their Answer for more detailed information before I comment fully.

Stay tuned for updates.

North Central Industries, Inc. v. Winco Fireworks, Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-02720-RLY-MPB
File Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Plaintiff: North Central Industries, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: John H. Brooke of Brooke | Stevens, P.C.
Defendant: Winco Fireworks, Inc., Winco Fireworks International, LLC, Creative Licensing Center Corp. 
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Dilution, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint: