Tag Archives: Jane Magnus-Stinson

List of Indiana Download Cases

20 Wednesday Jun 2012

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a comprehensive list of Indiana download cases. Follow the links to individual case details. The cases are sorted below by Plaintiff’s Attorney and Judge.

Last updated: 7/9/14

By Plaintiff’s Attorney:

Keith A. Vogt of Takiguchi & Vogt

  1. TCYK LLC v. Does 1-19
  2. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-16
  3. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-20
  4. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-20
  5. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-24

Matthew Edward Dumas of Hostetter & O’Hara

  1. CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe (GH Hustlers – Maryjane’s Second Visit)
  2. Millennium TGA Inc. v. John Doe (S.P. – Eva Lin & Patrick)

Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates, PLLC

  1. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-29 (Lunchtime Fantasy)
  2. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-13 (Busty Construction Girls)
  3. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-7 (15 Movies)
  4. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-23 (16 Movies)
  5. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-8 (Slow Motion)
  6. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-8 (Introducing Kaylee)
  7. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14 (Romantic Memories)
  8. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-11 (16 movies)
  9. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-11 (Performers of the Year 2012)
  10. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-10 (Performers of the Year 2012)
  11. Third Degree Films v. John Does 1-26 (Teens in Tight Jeans)
  12. Third Degree Films v. John Does 1-33 (Teens in Tight Jeans)
  13. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-16 (Best New Starlets 2012)
  14. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  15. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-5
  16. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  17. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  18. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  19. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  20. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (201)
  21. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (202)
  22. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (203)
  23. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (204)
  24. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (205)
  25. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (206)
  26. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (30)
  27. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (31)
  28. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (55)
  29. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (71)
  30. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (72)
  31. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (85)
  32. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (89)
  33. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (97)
  34. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (98)
  35. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (99)
  36. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (162)
  37. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (163)
  38. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (164)
  39. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (165)
  40. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (389)
  41. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (390)
  42. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (391)
  43. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (392)
  44. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (394)
  45. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (1:13-cv-00071)
  46. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (26)
  47. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (122)
  48. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (123)
  49. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (124)
  50. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (135)
  51. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (136)
  52. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (663)
  53. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (664)
  54. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (665)
  55. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (666)
  56. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (667)
  57. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (668)
  58. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (669)
  59. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (670)
  60. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (671)
  61. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (672)
  62. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (673)
  63. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (674)
  64. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (675)
  65. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (676)
  66. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe 5
  67. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe 9
  68. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe 12
  69. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.129.8.71
  70. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.129.162.170
  71. Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-16
  72. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.141.132.4
  73. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.151.109.205
  74. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.133.150
  75. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.13.26.28
  76. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.220.145.100
  77. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.220.129.105
  78. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.213.184.255
  79. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.212.56.174
  80. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.51.71.237
  81. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.163.85.215
  82. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.165.234.83
  83. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.151.212.213
  84. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.253.168.90
  85. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.253.11.177
  86. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.228.104.170
  87. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.227.7.60
  88. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.222.130.20
  89. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.220.54.186

By Judge:

Tanya Walton Pratt, Mark J. Dinsmore

Tanya Walton Pratt, Denise K. Larue

Tanya Walton Pratt, Debra McVicker-Lynch

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Debra McVicker-Lynch

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Mark J. Dinsmore

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Denise K. Larue

Sarah Evans Barker, Mark J. Dinsmore

Sarah Evans Barker, Tim A. Baker

Sarah Evans Barker, Debra McVicker Lynch

Sarah Evans Barker, Denise K. LaRue

Richard L. Young, Mark J. Dinsmore

Richard L. Young, Tim A. Baker

Richard L. Young, Denise K. LaRue

Richard L. Young, Debra McVicker Lynch

Philip P. Simon, Roger B. Cosbey

Philip P. Simon, Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Philip P. Simon, Andrew P. Rodovich

Jon E. DeGuilio, Andrew P. Rodovich

Jon E. DeGuilio, Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Jon E. DeGuilio, Paul R. Cherry

Jon E. DeGuilio, Roger B. Cosbey

Theresa L. Springmann, Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Theresa L. Springmann, Paul R. Cherry

Theresa L. Springmann, John E. Martin

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Paul R. Cherry

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Andrew P. Rodovich

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Roger B. Cosbey

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Paul R. Cherry

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Roger B. Cosbey

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Andrew P. Rodovich

Robert L. Miller, Jr. John E. Martin

Larry J. McKinney, Mark J. Dinsmore

William T. Lawrence, Tim A. Baker

William T. Lawrence, Mark J. Dinsmore

William T. Lawrence, Denise K. LaRue

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Millennium TGA Inc. v. John Doe (S.P. – Eva Lin & Patrick)

20 Wednesday Jun 2012

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Millennium TGA Inc. v. John Doe

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00838-JMS-DML
File Date:    Monday, June 18, 2012
Plaintiff:     Millennium TGA Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:     Matthew Edward Dumas of Hostetter & O’Hara
Defendant:     John Doe
Cause:    Copyright Infringement, Civil Conspiracy, Contributory Infringement
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:     Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – CP Productions v. John Doe

14 Thursday Jun 2012

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

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Just weeks after getting its own keyword advertising case, Indiana now has its very own BitTorrent download case. The Plaintiff, CP Productions, is an Arizona-based adult entertainment company and the file allegedly downloaded is “GH Hustlers – Maryjane’s Second Visit.” The Defendant, currently unidentified, is described as a “serial infringer of copyrights in adult content.” Besides a copyright claim, the Plaintiff also makes claims of Civil Conspiracy and Contributory Infringement and provides a list of 448 IP addresses alleged to have participated in a BitTorrent swarm with the named Defendant. If you’re a BitTorrent user, you’ll want to check the list (see Exhibit A below) and see if your IP address appears. If so, you could soon be a part of this lawsuit. That doesn’t mean it’s time to worry but you will want to begin to educate yourself on the case.

I’ll be following this lawsuit closely and will provide updates as it proceeds. If you’re interested in reading more now, check out DieTrollDie, an informative blog discussing this type of download case. Similar cases are going on all over the country with mixed results. Judge Magnus-Stinson is a no-nonsense judge, so it will be interesting to see whether this case can find any traction in her courtroom.

CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00808-JMS-DML
File Date:    Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Plaintiff:     CP Productions, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:     Matthew Edward Dumas of Hostetter & O’Hara
Defendant:     John Doe
Cause:    Copyright Infringement, Civil Conspiracy, Contributory Infringement
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:     Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Exhibit A – IP Addresses of “Civil Conspirators”

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Norwood Promotional Products v. KustomKoozies (DECISION)

06 Friday Jan 2012

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Over two years later, the Kustom Koozies case is over.

Norwood Promotional Products is a large Indianapolis-based promotional products company which sells imprinted “insulated containers for beverage cans” under the KOOZIE® trademark. KustomKoozies, LLC (“Kustom”) is an internet retailer that sold insulated beverage can and bottle holders with customizable promotional imprinting, directly to end-customers in quantities as small as a dozen. On May 15, 2007, the USPTO issued a trademark registration to Norwood for the mark “KOOZIE®” (see abstract below). On May 6, 2008, Norwood sent a letter to Kustom indicating that it had come to Norwood’s attention that Kustom was in violation of the licensing agreement the parties had previously discussed because Kustom failed to set out KOOZIE in all capital letters and set forth the appropriate subscript following the term. In response to the May 6, 2008, letter, defendant Robert Liddle reviewed the agreement and Kustom’s website pages, making changes that he believed cured any noncompliance issues, but he did not succeed in making all necessary changes. Norwood sued for breach of contract and trademark infringement.

After the lawsuit was filed, Kustom did not attempt to make any changes to its website in order to avoid the trademark infringement claim, but it did attempt to terminate the licensing agreement with Norwood. However, the attempt to terminate was unsuccessful. The Court found as a matter of law that the settlement and license agreements were valid contracts between the parties and that Kustom breached those contracts by purchasing, owning, registering or operating internet domain names that contained the term “koozie,” and by using the term “koozie” or “KOOZIE” to describe and sell products on those internet sites. The Court also found that the mere use of the claimed mark after the failed attempt to terminate the license agreement did not constitute trademark infringement and grant summary judgment to Kustom.

Practical Lesson: Think twice before you commence litigation. It can be timely (almost 2 1/2 years here) and expensive. However, trademark owners have a legal obligation to police and enforce their trademark rights, often putting owners between a rock (losing their trademark) and a hard place (expensive litigation).

No: 1:09-cv-1378-JMS-WGH (December 21, 2011)
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana
Before: Magnus-Stinson

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Eli Lilly v. Yanchep Veterinary Clinic

05 Saturday Nov 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Eli Lilly and Company v. Yanchep Veterinary Clinic Pty Ltd. et al

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-01469-JMS-TAB
File Date: Friday, November 04, 2011
Plaintiff: Eli Lilly and Company
Plaintiff Counsel: Jan M. Carroll of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Yanchep Veterinary Clinic Pty Ltd.
Petvetshop Pty Ltd.
Paul Sorensen
Dr. Cymantha Sorensen
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker