Tag Archives: Federal Trademark Infringement

Northwest Indiana Jewelry Stores Clash over Diamond Logos

03 Friday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Since 1905, Albert’s Diamond Jewelers has been selling diamond jewelry in Northwest Indiana. In 2002, they adopted the logo seen below when they moved to their current location in Schererville, Indiana. Their logo has not been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The logo is described as follows: “The mark prominently incorporates a diamond drawing with sharp edges and a multitude of internal sketch lines, all intended to evoke in a potential customer’s mind a precision cut, high-quality diamond. It’s name “Albert’s” appears above the term “Diamond Jewelers,” and incorporates a distinct style of typeface/font….” See Complaint (below), Section 13.

AaLand Diamond Jewelers recently opened a new location in Crown Point, Indiana, which is about 9 miles away from Schererville. AaLand has adopted a logo that Albert’s considers to be “suspiciously similar” to the 21-year old Albert’s logo.

Albert’s reached out to AaLand in late 2022 about their concern, but the parties have not found an amicable resolution. Albert’s initial letter, via counsel, references a single instance of consumer confusion in which an anonymous customer congratulated Albert’s on opening a new store. Albert’s has now filed a lawsuit seeking Court intervention.

I’ll let defense counsel do their job and dig up tons of other photos of similar jewelry store logos, but I can at least compare the parties’ respective logos.

In my opinion, the distinctive elements of the Albert’s font are the swooping, extended arm (leg?) of the “A” and the diamond-shaped asterisk. Neither of those elements appear in the AaLand logo. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the AaLand font is just a standard, stock font. Font experts leave a comment below. Albert’s utilizes all capitalized letters, while AaLand features the lower case “a”.

Looking at the two diamonds, they are clearly not identical. They both appear just like what you’d expect a diamond logo to look like, basically what you see on most jewelry store signs. Both are the classic diamond-shape outline with many internal lines depicting facets, just like a diamond. Jewelry experts (and eventually defense counsel) may be able to identify the differences in cuts portrayed on the logos.

Both logos incorporate the generic phrase “Diamond Jewelers,” but the Albert’s logo separates their name from the generic phrase with lines both above and below. The generic phrase is about 5/7 the width of the Albert’s name. The AaLand name is the same width as the generic phrase and separated by one line, which is also the same width as the wording.

If these two jewelry stores weren’t 9 miles apart, would there be any problem? Does close proximity (9 miles) override the ability to use generic elements in your logo? AaLand apparently doesn’t think so based off just one anonymous instance of consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for AaLand’s response to Albert’s Complaint.

Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc. v. AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC

Court Case Number: 2-23-cv-00039-PPS-JPK
File Date: February 1, 2023
Plaintiff: Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gary E. Hood of Hood Legal Group PC, Daniel W. Glavin of O’Neill McFadden & Willett LLP
Defendants: AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint:

Fireworks involved in first Indiana Trademark Lawsuit of 2023

10 Tuesday Jan 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Happy New Year! It didn’t take long to get the first Indiana trademark (and trade dress) lawsuit of 2023, and in continuation of the festive celebrations, it involves fireworks.

The Defendants are alleged to be selling fireworks that infringe the Plaintiff’s registered TIKI, GHOST, and XL trademarks, as well as a “Tiki Trade Dress”.

The parties seem to be all major players in the fireworks industry, so they likely have some history. The Plaintiff has registered trademarks and it seems that the Defendants introduced new competing products utilizing similar marks after the registration date. As always, the Defendants’ Answer may tell another side of the story so stay tuned for updates.

1.4G Holdings, LLC v. North Central Industries, Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00037-TWP-MG
File Date: January 5, 2023
Plaintiff: 1.4G Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Philip R. Zimmerly of Bose McKinney & Evans LLP
Defendants: North Central Industries, Inc., Great Grizzly, Inc., R.Brown, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Trade Dress Infringement, Misappropriation
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Mario Garcia

Complaint:

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:

Oakley sues Indianapolis Indoor Baseball Training Facility over Sale of Counterfeit Sunglasses

12 Friday Aug 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The defendants in this counterfeiting lawsuit operate an indoor baseball and softball training facility in Indianapolis. The plaintiff, Oakley, has accused the defendants of selling counterfeit sunglasses. The plaintiff’s investigators purchased counterfeit sunglasses from the defendants at the Edinburgh Sports Complex (i.e. a place where baseball is played) and at the defendant’s retail location in Indianapolis.

Oakley seeks an injunction, statutory damages, attorney fees’ and costs. Oakley is probably equally interested in obtaining information about the source of the counterfeit goods, possibly somewhere overseas.

Stay tuned for updates.

Oakley, Inc. v. Batter’s Box Training, LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD
File Date: August 11, 2022
Plaintiff: Oakley, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Zachary D. Prendergast of Robbins, Kelly, Patterson & Tucker, LPA
Defendants: Batter’s Box Training, LLC, Shawn Lessor, Brandi Pierson
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Indiana Lawsuit filed over Intellectual Property of Heaven’s Gate Mass Suicide Group

23 Monday May 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit is The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc., a for-profit foundation claiming to own all physical property and intellectual property of the Heaven’s Gate religious group, which committed the largest mass suicide in U.S. history in 1997. Among the claimed intellectual property are copyrights in audio cassettes, audiovisual works, fabric designs, lithographic prints, and literary works, as well as various trademark registrations for HEAVEN’S GATE.

The Defendants, three individuals, are accused of publicly sharing copies of the audio tapes and video tapes on a free online file sharing and storage site called “4Shared.com.” Per the Complaint (below), Defendant Havel anticipated being sued for sharing the works, posting the following comment on his website:

“So just weeks ago, [a third party] who I had been in contact with on and off for years sent me the digitized audios, all in .mp3 format and I quickly sent them to [Defendant Bartel] and someone else who I know I can trust to be sure to upload them to the internet in mulitple [sic] places so that even if [the Foundation] somehow sue us it will be far too late to keep them from being available to those who want to listen to them.”

The Defendants subsequently provided live streamed discussions advising others how to obtain copies of the allegedly infringed works. Numerous works were live-streamed on YouTube. T-shirts bearing the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks has been advertised by the Defendants. The Complaint alleges further actions taken by the Defendants to prevent the Plaintiff from enforcing its copyrights.

Having anticipated a lawsuit, presumably the Defendants have some type of solid defense ready to go. I expect fair use arguments (criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching), and probably some challenges to the foundation’s ownership of the claimed intellectual property. But t-shirt sales don’t usually go hand-in-hand with valid fair uses so we’ll just wait for the Defendants’ Answer for more clarification of their goals in sharing the works.

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. d/b/a/ The Telah Foundation v. Havel et al.

Case Number: 3:22-cv-00395-JD-MGG
File Date: May 18, 2022
Plaintiff: The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. d/b/a The Telah Foundation
Plaintiff Counsel: Isaac S. Crum of Messner Reeves LLP
Defendant: Steven Robert Havel, Cathy JoAnn Weaver, Jason Bartel
Cause: Federal Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement, Conspiracy, Federal Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint: