Tag Archives: Litigation Update

October 2026 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

30 Friday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

October was quiet on the named-party side of the Indiana copyright and trademark dockets. One local trademark case was filed and received its own post. The remaining filings were the kinds this blog usually skips. Here’s an update on last month’s activity in Indiana copyright and trademark litigation:

Pending Lawsuits

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC, 1:24-cv-01895-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., filed Oct. 25, 2024). Closed. On December 22, 2025, the court entered a consent judgment and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff against PDGROWTH LLC and Patrick D. Garton, jointly and severally, in the principal amount of $750,000, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Company, LLC, 3:24-cv-00190-DRL (N.D. Ind., filed March 1, 2024). Still pending. As of an August 10, 2026 order, fact discovery was extended to August 28, 2026, with expert and rebuttal deadlines running into late 2026 and mediation to be completed by February 10, 2027. Discovery disputes, including production of Microsoft Teams messages, continued through the fall.

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel et al, 3:22-cv-00395-DRL (N.D. Ind., filed May 18, 2022). Still pending. On August 26, 2026, the court issued an opinion and order granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on certain copyright ownership and liability claims, denying other motions, and directing the parties to file status reports by mid-September 2026 on damages, remaining counts, and counterclaims. Activity has continued since.

Honest Abe Roofing Franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al., 2:22-cv-00387-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., filed Sept. 7, 2022). Still pending. No public resolution appears on the docket since the September update.

Nickel and Dimes Incorporated v. Noah’s Arcade LLC et al, 3:23-cv-00699-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind., filed July 25, 2023). Still pending. The case had been stayed in March 2025 pending a related insurance coverage action. The stay was lifted in early October 2026, and filings resumed.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. et al., 1:24-cv-00293-JRS-CSW (S.D. Ind., filed Feb. 14, 2024). Still pending. No public resolution appears on the docket since the September update.

University of Indianapolis v. The Trustees of Indiana University, 1:26-cv-01669 (S.D. Ind., filed Aug. 11, 2026). Still pending. No answer or other substantive filings appear on the public docket since the complaint. The original post is here.

BioCote Limited v. BioBond Adhesives, Inc., 4:26-cv-00086 (S.D. Ind., filed Aug. 19, 2026). Still pending. No answer or other substantive filings appear on the public docket since the complaint. The original post is here.

New October Filings

Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm v. D-N-A Integrators, Inc. et al, 1:26-cv-02112 (S.D. Ind., filed Oct. 1, 2026). Still pending. The complaint concerns a 2015 asset purchase agreement transferring the Nelson Alarm name and the later registration of nelsonalarm.net. The original post is here.

Stay tuned for updates.

September 2026 Litigation Updates

Nelson Alarm sues Former Co-owner over nelsonalarm.net

14 Wednesday Oct 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In April 2015, Security Masters Corporation bought the assets of Nelson Alarm, Inc. The deal, an asset purchase agreement that Daniel E. Nelson signed personally, included the “Nelson Alarm” business and trademark name and the goodwill that went with it. Security Masters has done business as Nelson Alarm in Indianapolis since the closing. It says it has used the name continuously for the sale and installation of home and business security systems.

In July 2026, Security Masters learned that nelsonalarm.net had been registered on April 19, 2024, and was redirecting traffic to dnaintegrators.com, the site of D-N-A Integrators, Inc. Daniel E. Nelson is the founder and president of that company. The Complaint (below) says the two firms sell to the same buyers. A letter went out on July 8, 2026, demanding that the use stop and that the domain be transferred. The redirect came down. The parties were otherwise unable to find a suitable resolution. Security Masters now seeks the intervention of the Southern District.

Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm v. D-N-A Integrators, Inc. and Daniel E. Nelson

Court Case Number: 1:26-cv-02112-JPH-MKK
File Date: October 1, 2026
Plaintiff: Security Masters Corporation d/b/a Nelson Alarm
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate and David A.W. Wong of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendants: D-N-A Integrators, Inc. and Daniel E. Nelson
Cause: Breach of Contract; Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin; Common-law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement; Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Security Masters filed Serial No. 99900763 for NELSON ALARM on June 23, 2026, covering installation and monitoring of security and fire alarms, design and testing of the systems, and related services in Classes 37, 42, and 45. The application was awaiting examination when the complaint was filed. The suit does not need a registration certificate to plead § 1125(a) or the state claims. It does plead that the name was distinctive when the domain was registered, and that the registration was in bad faith.

The relief asked for is the usual set for this kind of file: an injunction against use of NELSON ALARM or anything confusingly similar, transfer of nelsonalarm.net, an accounting, damages, trebling where the statute allows it, statutory damages under the ACPA of up to $100,000 for the domain, destruction of materials bearing the mark, and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

Complaint:

Security Masters Corporation ComplaintDownload

What a BMI Bar Case Is (and Why This Blog Will Usually Skip Them)

05 Monday Oct 2026

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Broadcast Music, Inc. licenses the public performance of songs in its repertoire. When a bar, restaurant, or grill plays that music without a license, BMI and the publishers sue. The complaint names the venue and, often, the owners. It lists a handful of songs performed on a given night. It asks for statutory damages, an injunction, and fees. Indiana federal courts see these cases on a regular basis. The latest is Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Dagger’z Bar and Grill LLC, 4:26-cv-00265, filed September 24, 2026, against the Jeffersonville bar and two individuals.

That is the whole pattern. There is no fight over who wrote the songs, no fair-use argument that goes anywhere, and rarely an answer. The defendant takes a license, settles, or defaults. A consent judgment or a default judgment follows. The docket is short because the legal question is short: the songs were performed in public, and there was no license.

This blog is for named local disputes with something to read – a mark, a specimen, a story that is not the same story as last year’s bar. A BMI filing is technically a copyright lawsuit, and thus we don’t want to ignore them completely. However, they will no longer get their own post. If one of the BMI lawsuits turns into a real contest over ownership or a defense that is not “we will pay,” that one might earn a write-up. Until then, BMI cases will just appear in the monthly updates.

Stay tuned for new cases with something left to say after the complaint.

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

BIOCOTE vs. BIOCOAT…are you confused?

11 Friday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

BioCote Limited sues BioBond Adhesives for trademark infringement in N.D. Ind. (4:26-cv-00086)

BioCote Limited sued Lafayette adhesives maker BioBond Adhesives, Inc. on August 19, 2026, in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, Case No. 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, Indiana trademark and unfair competition claims, and breach of a brand license over BioBond’s BIOCOAT antimicrobial coatings.

The Complaint (below) is a licensee fight, not a stranger-on-the-internet fight. UK company BioCote owns U.S. Registration No. 5,306,757 for the BIOCOTE logo in Class 2 for antimicrobial powder-coating compositions (issued October 10, 2017; first U.S. sales under the mark pleaded as at least 2013). It licenses the chemistry and the mark to partners who put BIOCOTE on finished goods. BioBond, which makes plant-based adhesives and protective coatings in Lafayette, is pleaded as one of those partners. Under the Brand Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, BioBond took a non-exclusive license to the BIOCOTE mark, agreed the IP stayed with BioCote, and promised it “must not use in its business any other trademark similar to the [BioCote] Mark,” must not apply to register “Biocote [or] any similar word,” and must not do anything that would diminish the registration.

BioBond then launched BioCoat SUP250 and BioCoat SWaE250 – water-based polyurethane and epoxy coatings marketed for food-processing surfaces and “defense against mold, fungi, and other microorganisms” – and, the Complaint says, filed a standard-character U.S. application for BIOCOAT covering anti-mold, anti-fungal, and anti-microbial protective coatings. BioCote says it learned of the filing from a watch notice, understood after discussions that BioBond would drop the mark and the application, then found the application still moving. It opposed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91303474) and now wants the Northern District to stop the use.

The pleaded theory is short: BIOCOTE and BIOCOAT share five of seven letters and, BioCote says, sound the same; the goods are antimicrobial coatings sold into overlapping industrial channels; and the customer was already a licensed BIOCOTE partner, which the Complaint says makes source confusion worse, not better. BioCote seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against BIOCOAT, destruction of marked packaging, refusal or cancellation of the application, damages (including a treble/enhanced-damages request on alleged willfulness), and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

BioCote Limited vs. BioBond Adhesives, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ
File Date: August 19, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: BioCote Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie L. Teaford, H. Jonathan Redway, Nicole M. Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin; Indiana Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Breach of Contract
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Gretchen S. Lund
Referred To: Abizer Zanzi

Complaint:

BioCote Limited ComplaintDownload

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.

UINDY vs. IU INDY…are you confused?

09 Wednesday Sep 2026

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Indianapolis University of Indianapolis sued The Trustees of Indiana University on August 11, 2026, in the Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 1:26-cv-01669-JPH-MKK, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution over IU’s use of “IU INDY” for the former IUPUI campus – a phrase the south-side school says is too close to its federally registered UINDY mark.

The Complaint (below) opens as “an action for infringement of U Indy’s well-known federally registered trademark ‘UINDY.’” UIndy has used UINDY in commerce since 2002 and owns a family of live Principal Register registrations, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,755,827 (Class 41 educational services; first use June 3, 2002; registered August 26, 2003), 3,327,194, 3,756,194 (clothing), 3,865,804, 4,039,095, and 6,969,975. After IU and Purdue unwound IUPUI in 2024, IU began branding the downtown Indianapolis campus as IU INDY – including, contemporaneous reporting notes, on athletic goods – and filed intent-to-register applications for IU INDY, IU INDY and design, and IU INDY JAGUARS (Serial Nos. 98/413,770, 98/413,774, 98/413,777, and 98/414,051), which published on October 22, 2024.

UIndy opposed those applications at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on February 19, 2025 (Opposition No. 91297078). The federal complaint now takes the fight out of the Trademark Office and into the Southern District. As pleaded in the public accounts of the Complaint, the two schools compete for the same students in the same city; UIndy alleges “confusion and deception in the marketplace and diversion of potential students and customers of U Indy to IU,” and says it has already seen mix-ups among students, job applicants, delivery drivers, and FAFSA filers. IU’s media office has declined to comment on the litigation. An answer has not been filed.

UIndy seeks to stop display, distribution, marketing, and promotion under IU INDY, plus damages. Two Indianapolis universities, one transposed pair of letters, one federal trademark docket. Stay tuned for updates.

University of Indianapolis vs. The Trustees of Indianapolis University

Court Case Number: 1:26-cv-01669-JPH-MKK
File Date: August 11, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: University of Indianapolis
Plaintiff Counsel: William J. Barkimer, Daniel Tychonievich of Krieg DeVault LLP
Defendant: The Trustees of Indiana University
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement; Federal Unfair Competition; False Designation of Origin
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Complaint:

University of Indianapolis ComplaintDownload

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.