Tag Archives: Federal Trademark Infringement

HIKER vs. HYK OUTDOORS…are you confused?

08 Thursday Aug 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Both parties in this new Indiana trademark lawsuit manufacture “pull-behind” camper trailers. The plaintiff, Hiker Trailers of Columbus, Indiana, has sold trailers using the HIKER TRAILER brand since 2004.

The defendant, Hyk Outdoors, is a Missouri company that has been selling towable camping trailers since 2020.

The goods seem very similar, and presumably so are the parties’ respective consumers. The parties likely have or will promote their trailers at the same trade shows. Ultimately, it will need to be determined whether the trademarks HIKER and HYK OUTDOORS are confusingly similar. Although no specific instances of confusion are cited, the Complaint (below) alleges an admission of repeated consumer confusion by an employee of the defendant.

Stay tuned for updates.

Hiker Industries, LLC v. Hyk Outdoors LLC

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01320-RLY-MJD
File Date: August 5, 2024
Plaintiff: Hiker Industries, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: James M. Hinshaw, Brad R. Maurer of Dentons Bingham Greenebaum LLP
Defendant: Hyk Outdoors LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin or Sponsorship, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Atlas Van Lines sues Atlas Mover Group for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

18 Thursday Jul 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Atlas Van Lines of Evansville, Indiana, has been transporting goods under the name “Atlas” since 1948. The Atlas family of companies includes more than 430 independent Atlas agencies across the U.S. and Canada, plus authorized partners in 140 countries.

A pair of Georgia companies have apparently begun offering moving services under the fictitious business name “Atlas Mover Group,” allegedly constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.

A cease-and-desist letter was sent to the Georgia companies in February and Atlas Van Lines now seeks court intervention in the Southern District of Indiana.

Stay tuned for updates.

AWGI, LLC et al. v. Atlas Mover Group LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 3:24-cv-00116-MPB-CSW
File Date: July 15, 2024
Plaintiff: AWGI, LLC, Atlas Van Lines, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mark F. Warzecha, Esq. of Widerman Malek, PL
Defendant: Atlas Mover Group LLC, United Best Moving LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Violation of the Federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Referred To: Crystal S. Wildeman

Complaint:

Hot Girl Walk v. Hot Walk Indy…are you confused?

17 Wednesday Jul 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

An Indianapolis-based inclusive walking group is being sued for trademark infringement by the national walking group which had inspired its original name. The plaintiff operates a national women’s walking group called Hot Girl Walk, a name inspired by Megan Thee Stallion’s song “Hot Girl Summer.” The group promotes walking events for women across the country and has some significant sponsorships. In 2019, the defendant started a walking group called Hot Girl Walk Indy, which was later shortened to Hot Walk Indy. If this was the extent of the conflict, I suspect a federal lawsuit might never have been filed. However, while the trademark infringement claims in the Complaint (below) are the focus of this IP blog, the plaintiff was likely more concerned about an alleged series of defamatory statements, doxing, and aggressive bullying, all detailed in the Complaint. Standing alone, Hot Walk Indy might not cause a conflict with Hot Girl Walk, but when it’s combined with a group campaign of actively seeking to undermine the Hot Girl Walk brand, it puts a plaintiff in a position where they have to file a lawsuit.

It’s difficult to see how keeping the name of a relatively new local walking group would be worth the cost of defending a federal lawsuit, but perhaps the defense funds can be crowdfunded among the group. Considering the other activities detailed in the Complaint, the defendant may already be in too deep despite what name they use and the other group members may stay away for fear of being named as additional defendants.

Stay tuned for updates.

Hot Girl Walk LLC v. Springer d/b/a Hot Walk Indy

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01187-JMS-TAB
File Date: July 15, 2024
Plaintiff: Hot Girl Walk LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Joseph R. Delehanty of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: Casey Springer d/b/a Hot Walk Indy
Cause: Tortious Interference with Business Relationship, Defamation, Business Disparagement, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane E. Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Indianapolis Company sued for sale of Unauthorized Animal Health Supplements on Amazon

25 Tuesday Jun 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Nutramax Laboratories (“Nutramax”) produces health supplements for companion animals. In February 2024, Nutramax filed a trademark lawsuit against a Fort Wayne company for the sale of unauthorized animal health supplements on Amazon. Nutramax is now back in the Southern District in Indiana pursuing an Indianapolis company for similar violations.

It must feel like whack-a-mole for the plaintiff’s counsel, as unauthorized resellers can disappear just as fast as they appear. Nutramax has no option but to go through this legal process in order to get Amazon to take action and remove the unauthorized sales. In the context of health supplements for animals, potentially leading to illness or death if unsafe, this plaintiff simply can’t sit back and take no action when it sees counterfeit or unauthorized sales.

Stay tuned for updates on this case and look out for the June Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update in the next few days for the latest on the February lawsuit (and all other pending Indiana IP cases).

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al v. Abumyyaleh Bros LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01047-SEB-MKK
File Date: June 20, 2024
Plaintiff: Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Blake P. Holler of Krieg Default LLP
Defendant: Abumayyaleh Bros LLC, Mohammad Abumayyaleh
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Description, Indiana Common Law Tortious Interference with a Contract
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Complaint:

Twisted Tater Food Truck sues Twisted Taters for Trademark Infringement

06 Monday May 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Both parties in the latest Indiana trademark lawsuit operate food trucks in Indiana. The plaintiff has been operating as Twisted Tater since 2012, selling spiral cut potatoes placed on a skewer and deep fried.

The defendant apparently began operating as Twisted Taters in July 2021, selling “gourmet ribbon fryz.”

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter in October 2023 and, unable to find a suitable resolution, now seek the intervention of the Southern District of Indiana.

The plaintiff received an Indiana state registration for their logo in 2016. They also received an Indiana trademark registration for the word mark TWISTED TATER on April 1, 2024. The plaintiff filed a federal trademark application for TWISTED TATER on March 29, 2024. However, a Google search reveals that there are several “Twisted Taters” in operation across the country, so the plaintiff may have some additional enforcement work and/or opposition defenses before they receive a federal registration. There are also some prior registrations for TWISTER FRIES and TWISTER that may lead to a Section 2(d) “likelihood of confusion” refusal.

Stay tuned for updates.

Peugh et al. v. Nadler et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00764-JRS-TAB
File Date: May 3, 2024
Plaintiff: Charlotta Pugh, BCC Concessions, LLC d/b/a Twisted Tater
Plaintiff Counsel: Katie M. Charleston of Katie Charleston Law, PC
Defendant: Adam J. Nadler, Jr., Twisted Taters Food Truck and More, Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Indiana State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Use of Trade Name, Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Cybersquatting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint: