Tag Archives: Joshua P. Kolar

Buttermilk Café vs. Buttermilk Pancake House…are you confused?

27 Thursday Apr 2023

Posted by in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The plaintiff in Indiana’s latest trademark lawsuit owns three restaurants called Buttermilk Café in the Chicago metropolitan area, along with a federal trademark registration for BUTTERMILK CAFE (Reg. No. 5,888,702) claiming “restaurant services, in International Class 43,” with a date of first use in 2011. Notably, it is a concurrent use registration with another restaurant called Buttermilk Kitchen, based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Since at least 2019, the defendant has operated a restaurant called Buttermilk Pancake House in Munster, Indiana.

The Complaint (below) doesn’t mention any actual instances of consumer confusion. You might think if Buttermilk Café and Buttermilk Kitchen can co-exist, then surely there’s room in the marketplace for a Buttermilk Pancake House, particularly in a crowded field like restaurants, with over 1,000,000 operating restaurant locations in the U.S. However, Munster, Indiana is about 30 miles from Chicago, so proximity may be the plaintiff’s greatest concern in this situation. That’s close enough that both parties’ restaurants would inevitably show up in a map search for either restaurant. It’s close enough that consumers might think the “Pancake House” is an offshoot of the nearby “Café.” The Munster restaurant utilizes a different color and font for “Buttermilk” and “Pancake House” on their exterior signage, a marketing practice often used with a “family mark” and a new descriptive product/service name. This could arguably lead consumers to believing that there is a connection between the parties. However, other than use of a similar name, there’s no other evidence in the Complaint (e.g. similar logo, menu, interior design, color scheme, etc.) that the Munster restaurant is intentionally misrepresenting itself to be connected with the plaintiff’s restaurant.

Stay tuned for updates.

Sak Group, Inc. v. Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc.

Court Case Number: 2:23-cv-00142-PPS-JPK
File Date: April 25, 2023
Plaintiff: Sak Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael E. Tolbert, Shelice R. Tolbert, Candace C. Williams of Tolbert & Tolbert, LLC
Defendant: Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Passing Off, Federal Unfair Competition, Trademark Dilution, Violation of the Indiana Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint:

Northwest Indiana Jewelry Stores Clash over Diamond Logos

03 Friday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Since 1905, Albert’s Diamond Jewelers has been selling diamond jewelry in Northwest Indiana. In 2002, they adopted the logo seen below when they moved to their current location in Schererville, Indiana. Their logo has not been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The logo is described as follows: “The mark prominently incorporates a diamond drawing with sharp edges and a multitude of internal sketch lines, all intended to evoke in a potential customer’s mind a precision cut, high-quality diamond. It’s name “Albert’s” appears above the term “Diamond Jewelers,” and incorporates a distinct style of typeface/font….” See Complaint (below), Section 13.

AaLand Diamond Jewelers recently opened a new location in Crown Point, Indiana, which is about 9 miles away from Schererville. AaLand has adopted a logo that Albert’s considers to be “suspiciously similar” to the 21-year old Albert’s logo.

Albert’s reached out to AaLand in late 2022 about their concern, but the parties have not found an amicable resolution. Albert’s initial letter, via counsel, references a single instance of consumer confusion in which an anonymous customer congratulated Albert’s on opening a new store. Albert’s has now filed a lawsuit seeking Court intervention.

I’ll let defense counsel do their job and dig up tons of other photos of similar jewelry store logos, but I can at least compare the parties’ respective logos.

In my opinion, the distinctive elements of the Albert’s font are the swooping, extended arm (leg?) of the “A” and the diamond-shaped asterisk. Neither of those elements appear in the AaLand logo. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the AaLand font is just a standard, stock font. Font experts leave a comment below. Albert’s utilizes all capitalized letters, while AaLand features the lower case “a”.

Looking at the two diamonds, they are clearly not identical. They both appear just like what you’d expect a diamond logo to look like, basically what you see on most jewelry store signs. Both are the classic diamond-shape outline with many internal lines depicting facets, just like a diamond. Jewelry experts (and eventually defense counsel) may be able to identify the differences in cuts portrayed on the logos.

Both logos incorporate the generic phrase “Diamond Jewelers,” but the Albert’s logo separates their name from the generic phrase with lines both above and below. The generic phrase is about 5/7 the width of the Albert’s name. The AaLand name is the same width as the generic phrase and separated by one line, which is also the same width as the wording.

If these two jewelry stores weren’t 9 miles apart, would there be any problem? Does close proximity (9 miles) override the ability to use generic elements in your logo? AaLand apparently doesn’t think so based off just one anonymous instance of consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for AaLand’s response to Albert’s Complaint.

Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc. v. AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC

Court Case Number: 2-23-cv-00039-PPS-JPK
File Date: February 1, 2023
Plaintiff: Albert’s Diamond Jewelers, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gary E. Hood of Hood Legal Group PC, Daniel W. Glavin of O’Neill McFadden & Willett LLP
Defendants: AaLand Diamond Jewelers LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint:

Monster Energy sues Fitness Equipment Company over Claw Icon

28 Friday May 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This is the second lawsuit filed by an energy drink company in a week!

The Plaintiff, Monster Energy Company, brings this lawsuit after several years of unsuccessful direct communications with the Defendant attempting to seek voluntary compliance with their asserted trademark rights.

Anybody who’s been to a gas station or watched the X Games will recognize the Monster “Claw Icon” logo, an “M-shaped claw design with jagged or irregular contours designed to evoke a claw having torn through the can or other material.” The Complaint (below) claims that Monster brand drinks are the best-selling energy drink in the United States. In October 2020, Monster was named the 4th Most Marketed Brand in Sports.

The Defendant, Bear KompleX, sells fitness equipment such as hand grips, weight belts, compression sleeves, and weight belts. They utilize a “Bear Claw” logo (not the donut) which looks like a slash (not the rocker) from a five-fingered bear paw. Bear KompleX’s logo often appears in various colors, including sometimes green and black.

Monster first contacted Bear KompleX in August 2019 demanding that they stop selling a “Grip, Calicure, & Doc Spartan Monster Bundle.” Later that month, Monster sent another letter warning Bear KompleX not to use a green claw mark. The Defendant apparently responded over the subsequent year by expanding its product offerings bearing a green claw mark, seemingly taunting Monster to take legal action.

That legal action has now been taken by Monster, and I’ll be looking forward to seeing Bear KompleX’s Answer. The Complaint asserts only a likelihood of confusion and no actual instances of confusion, so we can expect the Defendant to argue against any likelihood of confusion. They can point to differences between the logos, such as the Bear KompleX logo having five slashes, versus Monster’s three, and their bear claw facing upward rather than downward.

Stay tuned for updates.

Monster Energy Company v. R&R Medical, LLC d/b/a Bear KompleX

Case Number: 2:21-cv-00179-PPS-JPK
File Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Plaintiff: Monster Energy Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: James W. Riley, Jr., Jaclyn M. Flint of Riley Bennett Egloff LLP
Defendant: R&R Medical d/b/a Bear KompleX
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Dilution, State Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint: