• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Federal Trademark Dilution

Splenda Manufacturer sues Speedway Gas Stations over Knock-off Chinese Sweetener

10 Wednesday Feb 2021

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trade Dress, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, False or Misleading Representation of Fact, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Trade Dress Infringement

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:

View this document on Scribd

Dispute over TERMINATOR fireworks name leads to trademark lawsuit

08 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Matthew P. Brookman, Richard L. Young

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:

View this document on Scribd

Sunman BP sued for selling counterfeit Oakley sunglasses

18 Friday May 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Counterfeiting, Debra McVicker Lynch, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Tanya Walton Pratt, Unjust Enrichment

The defendants in this counterfeiting lawsuit are the owners and operators of a BP gas station located in Sunman, Indiana, who are accused of selling counterfeit Oakley sunglasses. The counterfeit products were observed for sale in the store by Plaintiff’s representatives.

The plaintiff, Oakley, Inc., seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Oakley, Inc. v. Sunman BP et al.

Court Case Number: 4:18-cv-00085-TWP-DML
File Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Plaintiff: Oakley, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jason D. Groppe, Esq., Logan S. Bednarczuk, Esq.
Defendants: Swami Property Sunman Inc. dba Sunman BP, Chirag Patel, Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Federal Trademark Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Fishers sign company sues competitor for cybersquatting

13 Wednesday Jul 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Conversion, Cybersquatting, Deception, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act, Jane Magnus-Stinson, Matthew P. Brookman, Violation of the CyberPiracy Prevention Act

Plaintiff, based in Fishers, Indiana, is in the business of graphic design, sign manufacturing, metal fabrication, and creating promotional material and apparel.

Plaintiff’s website is located at www.eye4group.com.

Defendant is in the business of sign making and associated tools and products and is a direct competitor of Plaintiff in the Indianapolis area.

Defendant allegedly registered the domain “www.eyefourgroup.com” on October 1, 2015 and directed all traffic to its own website. That’s a no-no.

The domain is currently not active.

Screen Shot 2016-07-13 at 4.55.16 PM

Eye 4 Group, LLC v. Indianapolis Sign Works Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01864-JMS-MPB
File Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Plaintiff: 
Eye 4 Group, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel:
 Jennifer L. Mozwecz of SRM Law, Joe Duepner of Duepler Law, LLC
Defendant: Indianapolis Sign Works Inc., Andrew Chapman
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Deception, Conversion, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Cybersquatting, Violation of the CyberPiracy Prevention Act
Court:
 Southern District of Indiana
Judge: 
Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Trademark lawsuit filed over HYDRAPURE (pipe fittings) vs. HYPERPURE (plumbing pipes)

09 Monday May 2016

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christopher A. Nuechterlein, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

This lawsuit arises out of Defendant’s allegedly infringing use of the HYPERPURE mark in violation of Plaintiff’s registered trademark HYDRAPURE®.

Plaintiff uses its trademark in connection with pipe fittings and related parts. Defendant uses its trademark in connection with plumbing pipes.
Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 9.36.33 AM

NIBCO Inc. v. Legend Valve & Fitting, Inc.

Court Case Number: 3:16-cv-00275-JVB-CAN
File Date: Friday, May 6, 2016
Plaintiff: NIBCO Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Matthew J. Gipson of Price Heneveld LLP
Defendant: Legend Valve & Fitting, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Referred To: Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

← Older posts

Categories

  • Artists (20)
  • Authors (18)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (25)
  • Business Law (4)
  • Copyright (252)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (4)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (467)
  • Indianapolis (41)
  • Intellectual Property (519)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (457)
  • Musicians (10)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (142)
  • Patent (41)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (53)
  • Southern District of Indiana (263)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (13)
  • Trade Secret (11)
  • Trademark (269)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×