Tag Archives: Federal Unfair Competition

Trademark Infringement Lawsuit filed over Branded IT Training Videos

13 Wednesday Oct 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This is one of those trademark lawsuits that really isn’t about the trademarks. The subject matter is IT training videos, which you’d more typically find as the subject of a copyright lawsuit. As you’ll see, savvy branding of those videos has allowed the Plaintiff to bring this as a trademark lawsuit, with all the accompanying trademark remedies and none of the formal requirements of a copyright lawsuit.

The Plaintiff, ITPro.TV, makes IT training videos. Importantly, the training videos display the Plaintiff’s logo in the bottom left of the screen.

The Defendants, Hope Training Academy and their individual owners, operate a computer-based training academy in Carmel, Indiana that offers various computer certifications to underemployed adults. Allegedly, the Defendants have been showing Plaintiff’s branded training videos without authorization and, to add injury to insult, they also insert their own “Hope Training Academy” logo on the bottom right of the video.

The parties were engaged in seemingly fruitful settlement negotiations as late as August 2021, with the Defendants offering to make a nominal payment of $29.99 per infringing end user, an unacceptably low fee by the Plaintiff’s calculations. The Defendants also represented that they are no longer using the Plaintiff’s videos but those assertions have not been independently verified by the Plaintiff. Presumably the Plaintiff’s patience with the negotiations simply ran out and they now seek the wisdom (and coercive power) of the Court.

Stay tuned for updates.

Edutainment Live, LLC v. Video Game Palooza et al

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02611-JMS-DML
File Date: Monday, October 11, 2021
Plaintiff: Edutainment Live, LLC d/b/a ITPRo. TV
Plaintiff Counsel: Donald E. Lake III of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Defendant: Video Game Palooza d/b/a Hope Training Academy, Richard Barretto, Cara Barretto
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
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:

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:

VROOM Online Car Dealer Sues Indianapolis-based VROOOMSACE Dealership for Trademark Infringement

26 Friday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit, Vroom, is an online nationwide used car retailer based in New York, New York. own 8 U.S. trademark registrations for VROOM and the Vroom Logo, using the marks since at least 2014. The Plaintiff’s domain name is http://www.vroom.com.

The Defendants operate Vrooomsace, a used car retailer located in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Defendants’ use the domain name vrooomcars.com.

Asserting a likelihood of confusion, Plaintiff’s counsel first attempted to contact the Defendants on December 30, 2020, but apparently has received the runaround ever since, never receiving a substantive response from Defendants.

Their patience apparently has run out, resulting in this lawsuit. We’ll see whether Plaintiff finally gets a response. Unfortunately, often it takes a filed complaint for the opposing party to take a matter seriously. If not, this lawsuit could wind up with a default judgment.

Stay tuned for updates.

Vroom, Inc. v. Midwest Motors LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00715-TWP-TAB
File Date: March 24, 2021
Plaintiff: Vroom, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: David A.W. Wong, Caitlin R. Byczki, Kathleen S. Fennessy of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Midwest Motors LLC dba Vrooomsace Car Selection, Khaled Alragwi
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

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

10 Wednesday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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: