• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Federal Unfair Competition

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

10 Wednesday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, False or Misleading Representation of Fact, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Trade Dress Infringement

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:

View this document on Scribd

Georgia Used Car Dealership Software Company Sued for “Repeated and Brazen Actions”

20 Tuesday Oct 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Conversion, Federal False Advertising, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act, Mark J. Dinsmore, Richard L. Young

The Defendant in this lawsuit, a used car dealership management software company from Georgia, is accused of “repeated and brazen actions…designed to deceive and sow confusion in the marketplace.” Among the alleged actions of Defendant are illegitimate procurement of Plaintiff’s proprietary Run Lists (i.e. “lists containing information regarding automobile auctions”), use of a “bastardized” version of Plaintiff’s logo, and falsely claiming affiliation with Plaintiff.

The Defendant is also accused of inappropriately using Plaintiff’s AUTONIQ trademark in keyword advertising. The Defendant further used the AUTONIQ trademark in a deceptive email campaign which caused Plaintiff to receive inquiries from confused consumers.

Is it just me, or does the “bastardized” logo (see Complaint paragraph 23) actually look more like a goose rather than a “lower in quality” version of the Plaintiff’s eagle?

I’ll reserve judgment until the Answer is filed, as complaints can’t be relied on for the entire story, but this paints the picture of a Defendant who is willing to flout trademark law for a perceived competitive advantage.

Stay tuned for updates.

Adesa, Inc. and Autoniq, LLC v. Laser Appraiser, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:20-cv-02433-RLY-MJD
File Date: September 21, 2020
Plaintiff: Adesa, Inc., Autoniq, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Laser Appraiser, LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Conversion
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Plan B Games files Answer in Great Western Trail Litigation

01 Tuesday Oct 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Conspiracy, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Mark J. Dinsmore, Sarah Evans Barker

Plan B Games has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in the “Great Western Trail” lawsuit filed by Stronghold Games.

View this document on Scribd

The Answer is the standard cut-and-paste “Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations,” with just a few admissions to factual information.

The Affirmative Defenses, starting on Page 25,  challenge the Plaintiff’s rights in the GREAT WESTERN TRAIL trademark.

Stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE: This lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on January 30, 2020.

Indie Game Studios, LLC v. Plan B Games, Inc et al.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-1492-SEB-MJD
File Date: Monday, April 15, 2019
Plaintiff: Indie Game Studios, LLC d/b/a Stronghold Games LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Olmstead, Jr., John Bradshaw
Defendant: Plan B Games, Inc., Plan B Games Europe GMBH
Defendant Counsel: Burton S. Ehrlich of Ladas & Parry LLP, Darlene Seymour
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conspiracy
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Three Floyds Brewing sues Floyd’s Spiked Beverages for Trademark Infringement

26 Thursday Sep 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brewery, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition

Three Floyds Brewing is one of Indiana’s longest operating breweries, selling nationally-recognized delicious beers under the trademark THREE FLOYDS since 1996.

In 2018, the defendant Floyd’s Spiked Beverages began selling Spiked Lemonade and Spiked Ice Tea under the FLOYD’S trademark. The Defendants’ apparently lower quality beverages are sold within 20 miles of the Three Floyds brewery in Munster, Indiana. The Defendants also sell their product via a website at DrinkFloyds.com.

Three Floyds is already opposing one of Floyd’s trademark applications that claims “Alcoholic beverages, except beer.” The USPTO has refused Floyd’s other trademark application for “Beer-based coolers” based on a likelihood of confusion with Three Floyds’ registered trademarks.

The Complaint (below) spotlights several poor consumer reviews of the Defendants’ spiked beverages, but doesn’t mention any instances of actual consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for updates.

Three Floyds Brewing LLC v. Floyd’s Spiked Beverages LLC et al.

Court Case Number:  2:19-cv-00363
File Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Plaintiff: Three Floyds Brewing LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Glenn A. Rice, Esq., Carter S. Plotkin, Esq. of Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd.
Defendant: Floyd’s Spiked Beverages LLC, Lawrence Trachtenbroit
Cause
: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: TBD

Complaint: 

View this document on Scribd

HVAC Manufacturer sues Indiana RV Manufacturer for Trademark Infringement

12 Monday Aug 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Damon R. Leichty, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Michael G. Gotsch

The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is Trane International, Inc., a well-known manufacturer of HVAC systems and controls. Since at least as early as 1992, Plaintiff has used the trademark BUILT TO A HIGHER STANDARD. Trane owns U.S. Trademark Registration Number 5,380,586 for the trademark BUILT TO A HIGHER STANDARD covering “air conditioners; furnaces; heat pumps” in Class 11 and “installation, repair, and maintenance of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning products” in Class 37.

The Defendant is a Middlebury, Indiana-based manufacturer of recreational vehicles. Defendants have allegedly used an identical BUILT TO A HIGHER STANDARD trademark in connection with temperature control devices incorporated into their recreational vehicles.

Plaintiff first contacted Defendant about the alleged infringement in March 2018 and underwent unsuccessful cease-and-desist negotiations until May 2019. Defendant has continued using the trademark despite Plaintiff’s numerous warnings, leading to this lawsuit.

Stay tuned for updates.

Trane International, Inc. v. Grand Design RV, LLC

Court Case Number: 3:19-cv-00598-DRL-MGG
File Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2019
Plaintiff: Trane International, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: John D. LaDue of SouthBank LegalL LaDue | Curran | Kuehn
Defendant: Grand Design RV, LLC
Cause
: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

← Older posts

Categories

  • Artists (20)
  • Authors (18)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (25)
  • Business Law (4)
  • Copyright (252)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (4)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (467)
  • Indianapolis (41)
  • Intellectual Property (519)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (457)
  • Musicians (10)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (142)
  • Patent (41)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (53)
  • Southern District of Indiana (263)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (13)
  • Trade Secret (11)
  • Trademark (269)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×