Tag Archives: Litigation Update

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.

October 2024 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update

01 Friday Nov 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

No-file November is here…will Indiana IP litigators be able to withhold from filing any new lawsuits this month? Time will tell. For now, read on below for updates from October on all pending Indiana trademark and copyright litigation:

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc. (ND, filed 8/31/2021) –  No update this month.

Gabet et al. v. Amazon.com. Inc. et al. (ND, filed 1/20/2022) – If you’re following this lawsuit closely, go check PACER, because there are 35 new entries since last month. Most of it involves Amazon’s Motion for Attorney Fees filed on October 4, 2024.

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel et al (ND, filed 5/18/2022) – No update this month.

Honest Abe Roofing franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al. (SD, filed 9/7/2022) – No update this month. 

The Center for Gestalt Development, Inc. v. Bowman (SD (11/09/2022) – On October 9, 2024, the Court entered a slightly scathing Order against the plaintiff on Defendant Robine’s Motion to Compel. The plaintiff was ordered to provide a privilege log, amend its discovery responses, and also pay some attorney fees. On October 29, 2024, the plaintiff notified the Court of its compliance, but that was immediately challenged by Defendant Robine the following day with an objection.

National College Resources Foundation v. The Strong Friends LLC et al. (ND 5/4/2023) –  No update this month.

Nickel and Dimes Incorporated v. Noah’s Arcade LLC et al (ND 7/25/2023) – No update this month.

Banjo Corporation v. Green Leaf, Inc. (SD 9/29/2023) – A Discovery Conference was held on October 28, 2024 and the parties have 10 days to communicate any outstanding discovery requests.

Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. v. Dr. Permagreen, LLC et al. (ND 10/06/2023) –  On October 24, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, giving the defendants 14 days to supplement their discovery responses.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v. Luxury Mattress & Furniture, LLC (ND 11/09/2023) – No update this month.

Stross v. Homestead Properties, Inc. (SD 11/09/2023) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 11, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 15, 2024.

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al v. CNB Retailers, LLC et al. (ND 2/08/2024) – A Stipulated Consent Injunction Order was entered on October 16, 2024.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. et al. (SD 2/14/2024) – Answers to Interrogatories were submitted by both Key Bank and Ally Bank, in furtherance of the plaintiff’s pursuit of garnishment.

Sadowski v. Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV (SD 2/21/2024) – No update this month.

Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Company, LLC (SD 3/1/2024) – No update this month.

Rigsby v. All Seasons Roofing (ND 3/14/2024) – No update this month. 

Guangzhou Shima Decoration Materials Co., Ltd v. Shenzhen Ruimingxiang Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (SD 4/11/2024) – No update this month.

Howarth v. My Sauna World LLC (SD (4/29/2024) – A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on October 22, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed on October 23, 2024.

Peugh et al. v. Nadler et al. (SD 5/3/2024) – Dismissal papers are due by November 7, 2024.

NutraMax Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Abumayyaleh Bros LLC et al. (SD 6/20/2024) – On October 17, 2024, the plaintiff advised the court of ongoing settlement negotiations and a further update will be provided by November 18, 2024.

Miller v. Empire News LLC (SD 6/26/2024) – No update this month.

LifeWise, Inc. v. Parrish (ND 7/2/2024) – The plaintiff has been granted until November 5, 2024 to file a reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Forest River, Inc. v. Sharpline Converting, Inc. (ND 7/2/2024) – A Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is scheduled on November 19, 2024.

AWGI, LLC et al. v. Atlas Mover Group LLC et al. (SD 7/15/2024) – Clerk’s Entry of Default was entered on October 7, 2024. A Motion for Default Judgment and supporting Brief were filed on October 15, 2024.

Pepy v. Angie’s Lists, Inc. d/b/a Angi (SD 7/18/2024) – The plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on October 17, 2024 and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on October 22, 2024.

Hiker Industries, LLC v. Hyk Outdoors LLC (SD 8/5/2024) – The lawsuit has been settled and dismissal papers are due by December 16, 2024.

My Market LLC v. Batth Markets Inc. et al. (SD 8/6/2024) – The Complaint was served as of October 7, 2024.

Legacy Chiropractic, LLC v. Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC (ND 8/9/2024) – The defendant filed its Answer on October 2, 2024. A Telephonic Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference is scheduled on November 26, 2024.

BCW Diversified, Inc. v. Ultra Pro International, LLC (SD 9/30/2024) – Waiver of service was executed on October 29, 2024. Kathryn Kent has filed an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.

Jumpstart Communications LLC v. Jumper et al. (ND 10/22/2024) – No update yet.

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC et al. (SD 1o/25/2024) – No update yet.

Delta Faucet Company v. Bundrick et al. (SD 10/28/2024) – No update yet.

September 2024 Updates

August 2024 Updates – July 2024 Updates – June 2024 Updates – May 2024 Updates

April 2024 Updates – March 2024 Updates – February 2024 Updates – January 2024 Updates

December 2023 Updates – December 2022 Updates –  December 2021 Updates