Tag Archives: Jane Magnus-Stinson

Ray Luzier Photograph Copyright Lawsuit Filed in Southern District of Indiana

28 Wednesday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The plaintiff in this copyright infringement lawsuit is a professional photographer from Nashville, Tennessee. In March 2019, the plaintiff took a photograph of Ray Luzier, drummer for the band Korn. The photograph was immediately registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

The Defendant, which sells acoustical products from Indianapolis, Indiana, allegedly used the plaintiff’s photograph on its website without authorization, on a page about “famous users” of the Defendant’s products. The photograph was also allegedly posted on the Defendant’s Facebook and Instagram accounts.

Stay tuned for updates.

Berman v. Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02090-JMS-TAB
File Date: Thursday, July 22, 2021
Plaintiff: Sayre Berman
Plaintiff Counsel: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. of Barshay Sanders, PLLC
Defendant: Auralex Acoustics, Inc.
Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Falsification, Removal and Alteration of Copyright Management Information
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Mailbox Drone Manufacturer Invites Copyright Infringement Lawsuit by Stealing Product Photographs from Competitor

17 Thursday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit is an Illinois-based manufacturer of smart mailboxes and customized mail delivery drones.

Unfortunately, this copyright infringement lawsuit doesn’t involve the very interesting mailbox and drone technology but instead focuses on two photographs of Plaintiff’s product. The Defendants, a competing drone mailbox company from Indianapolis, allegedly copied the product photographs, make slight modifications to remove Plaintiff’s identifiers, and included the altered photographs in its own presentation materials, including at a major industry trade show.

Reviewing the images included in the Complaint (below), it certainly seems like these are fairly blatant, and slightly ridiculous, instances of copyright infringement. The Complaint also alleges several other claims based on the Defendants’ alleged attempts to “unfairly advance and promote the commercial identity, status and reputation of the Defendant Companies, to solicit the sale of their products and services to customers and potential customers, and to solicit investors, potential investors and partners, in competition with Plaintiff.”

I’m looking forward to the Defendants’ Answer and their possible explanation for the use of the altered photographs. Stay tuned for updates.

Valqari LLC v. Dronedek Corporation et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-01754-JMS-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Plaintiff: Valqari LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate, E. Sahara Williams of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Louis J. Alex of Cook Alex Ltd.
Defendant: Dronedek Corporation, Dronedek LLC, Daniel O’Toole
Cause: Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Representations, False Designations of Origin, Reverse Passing Off, Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Family-owned Hardware Store in Corydon, Indiana sued by Sears Hometown for Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference

08 Tuesday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit is Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC (“SAHS”), the licensor of Sears Hometown stores, which offer SAHS’s merchandise, such as major home appliances, for sale to the public on consignment from SAHS. For over 25 years, SAHS licensed a Sears Hometown store in Corydon, Indiana through dealership agreements with a series of independent dealers.

The Defendants are accused of using “their personal relationships with SAHS’s former dealer to block SAHS’s access to the market and open their own store, “Schneider’s Hometown,” at the same location as the former Sears Hometown store. Defendants are now unfairly trading off SAHS’s name and goodwill in the Corydon market.”

The Complaint (below) details the history between the original Corydon SAHS store and the Defendants, including the actions of the Defendants in abandoning their own dealer agreement.

The Defendants are also accused of using a sign designed to be confusingly similar to the sign used to designate a Sears Hometown store, including using the same font and color scheme. The interior of the Defendants’ store allegedly uses the same trade dress and fixtures used in SAHS’s branding programs, including, but not limited to, the paint colors and trim and vinyl plank wood flooring. The Defendants also continue to use the same phone number from the SAHS store.

Stay tuned for updates.

Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC v. Lynn Retail, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 4:21-cv-00091-JMS-DML
File Date: Friday, June 4, 2021
Plaintiff: Sears Authorized Hometown Stores, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael W. Oyler of Furman Nilsen & Oyler, PLLC, Fredric A. Cohen, Allison R. Grow, Charles J. Hoover of Cheng Cohen LLC
Defendant: Lynn Retail, Inc., Jerry Schneider, Laura Schneider
Cause: Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

New Indianapolis Bouldering Facility sues Accusers for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement

12 Friday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The Plaintiff in this action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement is a yet-to-open rock climbing gym in Indianapolis, Indiana. More specifically, the planned gym will provide a venue for “bouldering,” a type of rock climbing low enough to the ground to be done without safety ropes.

The Defendants operate similar “bouldering” facilities in Washington (State), Texas, and Minneapolis. As admitted in the Complaint (see Complaint, Section 10, below), “For a brief period of time in late 2020, one of Plaintiff’s members used content from one of Defendant’s websites as placeholder text during the website design process. This text was removed after two weeks of being publically available, and has been replaced by Plaintiff’s current website: https://www.northmassboulder.com/.”

The Defendants contacted the Plaintiff via counsel in December 2020, at which time the “infringing” content was removed from Plaintiff’s website. Nonetheless, dialogue between the parties’ counsel was apparently unproductive and it became clear that Defendants were going to sue Plaintiff. As such, the Indianapolis-based Plaintiff seized the initiative and filed a declaratory judgment action to prove their lack of infringement.

Declaratory judgment actions are always interesting as they flip the usual filing paradigm (i.e. the infringed filing against the infringer). There is an admitted temporary use by Plaintiff of some of the Defendant’s online content but other issues like trade dress and trade secrets are raised in the Complaint and will be interesting to follow to resolution. Stay tuned for updates.

Indianapolis Bouldering, LLC v. BP Holdings Company, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00344-JMS-JMD
File Date: February 11, 2021 
Plaintiff: Indianapolis Bouldering, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Steven T. Henke of TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
Defendant: BP Holdings Company, LLC, Seattle Bouldering Project, LLC, Minneapolis Bouldering Project, LLC, and Austin Bouldering Project, LLC
Cause: Invalidity or Unenforceability of Intellectual Property Rights, Non-Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, Non-Violation of Alleged Trade Secrets
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Terre Haute Endocrinology Center sues competing medical center for not having an Endocrinologist in its “Endocrinology Department”

24 Thursday Aug 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are an endocrinologist and his medical center in Terre Haute, Indiana, providing endocrinology care and services.

The Defendant is a competing medical center in Terre Haute. Allegedly, the Defendant lost its last board-certified endocrinology physician in 2014 but continues to advertise that it has an “Endocrinology Department.”

Per the Complaint (below):

“due to the use of ‘endocrinology’ in its advertising and representations to the public, patients and potential patients are led to believe that there is a physician practicing at Defendant’s facility that is board-certified in the specialty of endocrinology.”

To Plaintiff, which is a competing medical center in the area that does employ a board-certified endocrinologist, this constitutes false advertising and unfair competition.

The case was originally filed in Vigo Superior Court but removed to the Southern District of Indiana.

Pittman et al. v. Union Medical Group LLC

Court Case Number:2:17-cv-00393-JMS-MPB
File Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Plaintiff: Isaiah Pittman IV, MD, HPW Center For Diabetes, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul J. Jungers of Wagner, Crawford, Gambill and Jungers
Defendant: Union Medical Group LLC
Cause: False Advertising, Indiana Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint: