Tag Archives: Federal Trademark Infringement

Atlas Van Lines sues Atlas Moving Systems for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

27 Tuesday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Plaintiffs in this trademark lawsuit, Atlas Van Lines of Evansville, Indiana, have 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.

The Defendant is alleged to have offered its moving services to the public since 2015 under the fictitious business name “Atlas Moving Systems AMS,” constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The Plaintiffs first sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Defendants in September 2017. A follow-up letter was sent in November 2020, over three (3) years later. There is no explanation given in the Complaint (below) for the lengthy delay by Plaintiffs in enforcing their trademark rights. However, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction has also been filed along with the Complaint so they’ve clearly determined that they can now no longer abide the Defendants’ ongoing presence in the marketplace. The supporting Memorandum (below) documents instances of actual consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for updates.

AWGI, LLC et al. v. CLD Trucking Co. d/b/a Atlas Moving Systems AMS

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00117-RLY-MPB
File Date: Thursday, July 22, 2021
Plaintiff: AWGI, LLC, Atlas Van Lines, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mark. F. Warzecha, Esq. of Wideman Malek, PL
Defendant: CLD Trucking Co. d/b/a Atlas Moving Systems AMS
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

Poulsen files Trademark Lawsuit in Indiana over Counterfeit “Ingrid Bergman” Roses

15 Thursday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet –William Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet

Poulsen Roser is a family-owned Danish company world-famous for its breeding of distinctive rose varieties, for which it obtains patent and trademark protection. A lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of Indiana involving their INGRID BERGMAN rose, a “unique currant red hybrid tea rose variety.” Poulsen owns a U.S. trademark registration for INGRID BERGMAN in connection with “live roses.”

The Defendants operate one of the U.S.’s largest wholesale rose growers, distributing flowers to garden centers, nurseries, and mail order outlets.

This lawsuit arises because the Defendants are allegedly producing, advertising, selling, and distributing unauthorized roses using the Poulsen’s INGRID BERGMAN mark. Further bibliographical information on the Defendants’ website about their “counterfeit” roses (see screenshot) might suggest to consumers that they are in fact authentic Poulsen roses.

Surely this situation can’t be as cut and dried as the Complaint (below) would imply. A large wholesale grower like the Defendants would certainly understand the implications of selling unauthorized rose varieties and know they couldn’t escape detection. We’ll have to stay tuned for their Answer and another possible side of the story.

Poulsen Roser A/S vs. Gardens Alive, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 4:21-cv-00113-SEB-DML
File Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2021
Plaintiff: Poulsen Roser A/S
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Gardens Alive, Inc., Early Morning LLC d/b/a Weeks Roses
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competion, Federal False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conversion, Theft
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

GETGO vs GET 2 GO for Convenience Stores…Are You Confused?

15 Thursday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Giant Eagle is the owner of GETGO® convenience stores, with 269 locations, including four (4) stores in Fort Wayne, Indiana that were opened in 2018. Giant Eagle owns several U.S. trademark registrations for GETGO, claiming a date of first use of March 2003 for “Convenience store services, including fuel.”

The Defendants are the owners of three (3) retail convenience stores named GET 2 GO in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Defendants own two U.S. trademark registrations for the GET 2 GO trademark, claiming a date of first use of June 2011. The Plaintiff has contemporaneously filed a Petition for Cancellation (see below) against the Defendants’ registrations.

The Plaintiffs sent communications to Defendants via counsel in February 2020 and April 2021. Per the Complaint (below), “Defendants, through counsel, indicated that they were 􏰇􏰑􏰌􏰙􏰞􏰐􏰔”simply not interested” in a business resolution or in discontinuing the use of the Infringing Marks.”

The Complaint doesn’t mention any instances of actual confusion.

Given the decade-long use of their own trademarks, coexisting peacefully with apparently no instances of consumer confusion, I’m not surprised that the Defendants have opted to stand their ground and not change their name. I’ll be interested to see the affirmative defenses and possibly counterclaims in the Defendants’ Answer. Stay tuned for updates on both the lawsuit and the cancellation proceeding.

Phoenix Intangibles Holding Company et al vs. Virk Brothers, LLC et al

Case Number: 1:21-cv-00263-HAB-SLC
File Date: Friday, July 9, 2021
Plaintiff: Phoenix Intangibles Holding Company, Giant Eagle, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Anthony M. Eleftheri of Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLC
Defendant: Virk Brothers, LLC, Charanjit Singh
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Petition for Cancellation:

Truck Repair Company sues Previous Owner for Trademark Infringement

28 Wednesday Apr 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The parties in this lawsuit entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement in 2012, by which the Plaintiff purchased all assets and intellectual property of the truck repair company Triple LLL Truck Repair. The Plaintiff has continued to operate the business since the purchase, now located in Andrews, Indiana, and recently registered the “TRIPLE LLL” trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The Defendant in the lawsuit is the original seller, who has now allegedly begun operating a new truck repair business under the same name, Triple LLL, out of a location that Plaintiff had previously used.

The Complaint alleges both a likelihood of confusion and instances of actual confusion.

Stay tuned for the Defendants’ Answer and a possible explanation for re-adopting the Triple LLL name (perhaps a violation of the Asset Purchase Agreement?).

Triple LLL Truck Repair, Inc. v. Triple LLL, Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 3:21-cv-00282-JD-MGG
File Date: Monday, April 26, 2021
Plaintiff: Triple LLL Truck Repair, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: William A. Ramsey of Barrett McNagny LLP
Defendant: Triple LLL, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint:

Delta Faucet Company sues Russian Counterfeiters over Unauthorized Amazon Sales

29 Monday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Delta Faucet Company is going after Russian counterfeit faucet sellers in the Southern District of Indiana. In a lengthy and well-drafted Complaint (below), the Plaintiff details how a company’s trademarks are impacted by negative online marketplace reviews and unauthorized sellers. The lawsuit potentially exposes a gray market existing within Amazon’s “Fulfillment by Amazon” services that allows for counterfeit sales, leading to invalid product warranties, disgruntled consumers, and a damaged brand.

This lawsuit, along with Delta’s upgraded authorized seller policies (described in the Complaint), could serve as a good model for other companies dealing with online counterfeits. Although I predict the individual counterfeiters will simply disappear to continue on behind other aliases, Delta is likely more interested in getting an injunction to prevent further Amazon sales, setting precedent against counterfeiters and possibly allowing them to address the numerous unearned negative product reviews.

Stay tuned for updates.

Delta Faucet Company v. Iakovlev et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00733-JRS-TAB
File Date: March 25, 2021
Plaintiff: Delta Faucet Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Dmitrii Iakovlev, John Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Deception
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint: