Tag Archives: Litigation Update

Bedding companies in neighboring counties both claim BAMBOO LUXURY trademark

17 Tuesday May 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Pillow fight! This trademark lawsuit involves the trademark BAMBOO LUXURY in connection with bedding and other household textiles.

bed sheets, bedspreads, bath mats, blankets, comforters, coverlets, curtains, duvets, duvet covers, furniture protectors, mattress pads, pillowcases, pillow shams, quilts, shams, sheets, sheet sets and throws

Plaintiff, located in Steuben County, Indiana, has used its registered trademark BAMBOO LUXURY since April 2015. An intent-to-use application had been filed with the USPTO in June 2014.

Defendant, located in neighboring LaGrange County, Indiana, uses the same trademark in connection with sheets. It is not clear when Defendant began using the trademark, although Plaintiff asserts that it is the senior user.

Screen Shot 2016-05-17 at 7.55.12 AM

Stay tuned for updates. This one could get dirty.

Duke Imports Inc. v. All That Jazz Trading LLC

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00160-TLS-SLC
File Date: Monday, May 16, 2016
Plaintiff: Duke Imports Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: James A. McEntarfer
Defendant: All That Jazz Trading LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Richard Bell sues Forensics Expert over use of Indianapolis skyline photo

13 Friday May 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

It’s official…this being the third day in a row of him filing copyright lawsuits, we have another Richard Bell litigation spree! It had been awhile but Mr. Bell is apparently making up for lost time. Stay tuned to this blog over the next few days as we find out just how many people unwittingly used Mr. Bell’s Indianapolis skyline photographs.

In this action, Mr. Bell is suing a forensics consultant/trainer from Kansas City who used a skyline photo on his company’s website back in 2014.

Use the “Richard Bell” tag at left to find his other litigation.

Screen Shot 2016-05-13 at 8.13.29 AM

Richard N. Bell v. Maloney

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01193-RLY-DML
File Date: Thursday, May 12, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Michael Maloney
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Richard Bell sues Real Estate Company over use of Indianapolis skyline photo

12 Thursday May 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Use the “Richard Bell” tag at left to find other similar litigation involving these Indianapolis skyline photographs.

Screen Shot 2016-05-12 at 6.16.58 AM.png

Richard N. Bell v. Carmen Commercial Real Estate Services

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01174-TWP-MPB
File Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Carmen Commercial Real Estate Services
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Klipsch sues eBay Seller for Unauthorized Sale of Speakers

04 Wednesday May 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Klipsch, manufacturer of high-end audio speakers, is suing an eBay seller, HumanAudio, for unauthorized sales of its speakers.

In addition to selling “brand new” Klipsch speakers at discounted prices, the defendant is also accused of removing and replacing serial numbers, thus voiding any Klipsch warranty for the unwary end customer. Allowing an unauthorized licensor to continue with discounted sales undermines authorized distributors who must contractually maintain higher prices. Pressure from both authorized distributors and customers left without a warranty essentially forces legal action from Klipsch in this situation.

HumanAudio’s Klipsch speaker sales appear to continue unabated. Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-05-04 at 8.11.18 AM

Klipsch Group, Inc. v. Steve Myers d/b/a HumanAudio

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01034-WTL-MPB
File Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Plaintiff: Klipsch Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Dean E. McConnell of Indiano & McConnell LLC
Defendant: Steve Myers d/b/a HumanAudio
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Coop v. Co-op phonetic similarity fuels trademark dispute

02 Monday May 2016

Posted by in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff is a farmer owned cooperative which operates an oil exploration, production, refining, and marketing company. They have used their registered CO-OP trademark since at least 1991.

Defendant is a fuel company called Coop (pronounced Co-op) Fuels. They were first contacted by Plaintiff two weeks ago regarding their confusingly similar trademark and, apparently, did not act quickly enough to change their name.

Screen Shot 2016-05-02 at 12.38.25 PMNote the Defendant’s website is currently down and its Facebook page has announced “big changes coming,” so perhaps a name change is already underway. Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-05-02 at 12.34.44 PM

Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC v. Coop Fuels, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00972-SEB-MPB
File Date: Friday, April 29, 2016
Plaintiff: Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: David K. Herzog, Amie Peele Carter, Louis T. Perry of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: Coop Fuels, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception, Conversion, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Jasper-based Kimball International files lawsuit to enforce KIMBALL trademark

27 Wednesday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff, Kimball International, Inc., has been selling furniture under the KIMBALL trademark since 1970. Plaintiff owns several trademark registrations, including the following:

Screen Shot 2016-04-27 at 8.50.57 AM

According to the Complaint (below), it was recently brought to Plaintiff’s attention that Defendant, a California-based furniture importer and distributor, had also begun selling “KIMBALL” furniture through its own website and retail partners.

Screen Shot 2016-04-27 at 8.42.40 AM

A cease-and-desist letter was sent by Plaintiff on March 29, 2016, apparently to no effect. Stay tuned for updates.

KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COA, INC.

Court Case Number: 3:2016-cv-00054 840
File Date: Monday, April 25, 2016
Plaintiff: Kimball International, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: COA, Inc. d/b/a Coaster Company of America
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Contributory Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception, Conversion, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Michael P. Brookman

Complaint:

Painter sues Wine and Canvas for Copyright Infringement during “Paint Parties”

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Plaintiff, a painter from Florida, alleges that her paintings were copied without authorization at the Defendants’ “paint parties.” Plaintiff asserts that her registered artworks were reproduced at paint parties on at least 36 occasions. According to the Complaint (below), Plaintiff contacted Wine and Canvas about the recurring infringements multiple times, starting back in April 2012.

Screen Shot 2016-04-13 at 5.09.55 PM

Duncanson v. Wine and Canvas IP Holdings LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00788-SEB-DKL
File Date: Monday, April 11, 2016
Plaintiff: Megan Aroon Duncanson
Plaintiff Counsel: Cynthia Conlin, Esq.
Defendant: Wine and Canvas IP Holdings LLC et al
Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Denise K. LaRue

Complaint:

 

Coach sues Knox, Indiana Convenience Store over Counterfeit Purses

05 Tuesday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Defendants in this lawsuit, the owners of a convenience store located in Knox, Indiana, are accused of selling counterfeit Coach merchandise. The counterfeit purses were observed for sale in the store on multiple occasions by a Coach investigator and Homeland Security Investigations officer.

Selling counterfeit merchandise is, not surprisingly, a big no-no and Coach takes its intellectual property very seriously, hence this lawsuit containing trademark, copyright and trade dress claims.

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 8.38.21 AM

Coach, Inc. et al v. Zip Thru Mart et al

Court Case Number: 3:2016-cv-00209-JD-CAN
File Date: Monday, April 4, 2016
Plaintiff: Coach, Inc., Coach Services, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: P. Russell Pardew of Locke Lord LLP
Defendant: Zip Thru Mart, Charles Estok, Sr., Janice Estok
Cause: Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Trademark Dilution, Copyright Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Complaint:

The Great American Bagel files Trademark Lawsuit over Rearranged Signage

25 Friday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I’ll let the two trademarks at issue here speak for themselves – THE GREAT AMERICAN BAGEL (stylized) vs. THE GREAT AMERICAN EAGLE (nearly identically stylized). Check out the comparison images from the Complaint:

Screen Shot 2016-03-25 at 7.30.10 AM

The remarkable similarity is, not surprisingly, no coincidence. Defendant obtained an old sign previously used by Plaintiff and apparently opted to save money by just rearranging a few letters and calling his gas station/convenience store “The Great American Eagle”.

As Defendants’ convenience store sells food products, Plaintiff has alleged consumer confusion and is seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Stay tuned for updates.

The Great American Bagel Enterprises, Inc. v. United HBA Corporation et al

Court Case Number:3:16-cv-00038-RLY-MPB
File Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016
Plaintiff: The Great American Bagel Enterprises Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Stacy K. Newton of Jackson Kelly PLLC
Defendant: United HBA Corporation and Harbhajan Singh, d/b/a The Great American Eagle
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising, Unfair Competition, Trade Name Infringement, Passing Off, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Bookman

Complaint:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Oak Motors, Inc. (Indiana) v. Oak Motors, Inc. (California)

21 Monday Mar 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff has been operating as “Oak Motors” since 1985, buying and selling automobiles and providing financial services related to the purchase and sale or automobiles. Plaintiff has five primary physical locations and also advertises via its website.

Defendant, a California company providing similar services, began operating as “Oak Motors” in February 2014. Plaintiff first learned of Defendant’s adoption of the name in March 2015 and sent a cease-and-desist letter citing its prior rights and federal registration. Defendant allegedly first agreed to discontinue use of the “Oak Motors” mark but did not follow through and continues to use the trademark (and similar domain names), hence this lawsuit.

Oak Motors, Inc. (Indiana) v. Oak Motors, Inc. (California)

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00595-JMS-MJD
File Date: March 16, 2016
Plaintiff: Oak Motors, Inc. (Indiana)
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Zach Gordon of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: Oak Motors, Inc. (California)
Cause: False Designation of Origin, False Description, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting, Declaratory Judgment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint: