Tag Archives: Federal Trademark Dilution

Indiana publication Rough Notes sues over “plaque” solicitations

09 Tuesday Feb 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Most professionals will be familiar with the type of solicitation involved in this lawsuit.

Defendant, based in Connecticut, sells customized plaques for people and companies that have been featured in newspapers or magazines. Defendant promotes its product by directly emailing (repeatedly) the individuals featured in the magazine/newspaper with a solicitation to purchase a customized plaque featuring the article. (See examples in the photo and Exhibit C below.) Defendant’s products consist of a scanned copy of the article and publication’s title inserted into an acrylic, wood or aluminum frame. Defendant has allegedly sold over 200,000 plaques.

Plaintiff, a long-standing Indiana publication focused on insurance agents, is one target of Defendant’s activities. Notably, Plaintiff also provides its own free high-quality reprint plaques to individuals profiled in its magazine. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendant based on the unauthorized use of its trademark and copyrighted materials, among other claims.

Screen Shot 2016-02-09 at 11.06.34 AM

The Rough Notes Company, Inc. v. That’s Great News, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:2016-cv-00319
File Date: Monday, February 8, 2016
Plaintiff: The Rough Notes Company, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: David J. Carr, Paul C. Sweeney, Jana E. Harris of Ice Miller LLP
Defendant: That’s Great News, LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Exhibit C (Sample e-mail solicitations):

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Barrington Music Products v. Guitar Center Stores

08 Friday Jan 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

This trademark dispute involves Plaintiff’s registered VENTO trademark and an allegedly infringing VENTUS mark, both used in connection with wind instruments.

Barrington Music Products Inc v. Guitar Center Stores, Inc. et al

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-02031-TWP-TAB
File Date: Thursday, January 7, 2016
Plaintiff: Barrington Music Products
Plaintiff Counsel: John D. LaDue, Sean J. Quinn of LaDue | Curran | Kuehn
Defendant: Music & Arts Centers, Guitar Center Stores, Inc., Eastman Music Company
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Trade Name Infringement under Indiana Common Law, Passing Off
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Complaint:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Indigo Vapor Enterprises v. Indigo Vapor Company

07 Wednesday Oct 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff, based in South Bend, Indiana,  is an international seller of vaping and e-cigarette materials, including e-juice and holds two U.S. registrations (word mark and stylized) for INDIGO VAPOR. Plaintiff has been using its trademarks since September 2012.

Defendant, an Arizona company, is also selling e-cigarette and vaping products under the mark INDIGO VAPOR from the domain indigovaporcompany.com. It is not clear from the Complaint when Defendant first began using its trademark, although Defendant appears to be the junior user. Reddit communications detailed in the Complaint indicate that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s use of the INDIGO VAPOR trademark when selecting its business name.

Indigo Vapor Enterprises LLC v. Indigo Vapor Company LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00451-RLM-CAN
File Date: Thursday, October 1, 2015
Plaintiff: Indigo Vapor Enterprises LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: John A. Drake of LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC
Defendant: Indigo Vapor Company LLC, Robert Lee Martin, Charles Nandier
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Cybersquatting, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Chanel v. Chanel’s Salon

05 Friday Sep 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

From the Complaint: “Chanel recognizes the fact that “Chanel” is the first name of Defendant Chanel Jones. But this suit is not about Ms. Jones’ ability to use her name to identify herself. Ms. Jones is using CHANEL as a trade name for a beauty business and commercially exploiting the name CHANEL. There is no absolute right to exploit one’s given name commercially if such use is inconsistent with Chanel’s rights. In this case, Ms. Jones is not using her entire name but is instead only using that part of her name that copies Chanel’s famous CHANEL trademark. Ms. Jones’ use began long after the CHANEL mark was registered and became famous, and Ms. Jones’ use is in connection with services related to those offered by Chanel.”

Chanel, Inc. v. Chanel’s Salon LLC et al

Court Case Number: 2:14-cv-00304
File Date: Friday, August 29, 2014
Plaintiff: Chanel, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gregory A Neibarger
Defendant: Chanel’s Salon LLC, Chanel Jones
Cause: Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry

Complaint: