Tag Archives: Litigation Update

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Indigo Vapor Enterprises v. Indigo Vapor Company

07 Wednesday Oct 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Plaintiff, based in South Bend, Indiana,  is an international seller of vaping and e-cigarette materials, including e-juice and holds two U.S. registrations (word mark and stylized) for INDIGO VAPOR. Plaintiff has been using its trademarks since September 2012.

Defendant, an Arizona company, is also selling e-cigarette and vaping products under the mark INDIGO VAPOR from the domain indigovaporcompany.com. It is not clear from the Complaint when Defendant first began using its trademark, although Defendant appears to be the junior user. Reddit communications detailed in the Complaint indicate that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s use of the INDIGO VAPOR trademark when selecting its business name.

Indigo Vapor Enterprises LLC v. Indigo Vapor Company LLC et al

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00451-RLM-CAN
File Date: Thursday, October 1, 2015
Plaintiff: Indigo Vapor Enterprises LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: John A. Drake of LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC
Defendant: Indigo Vapor Company LLC, Robert Lee Martin, Charles Nandier
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Cybersquatting, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Professional Transportation Inc. v. Robert E. Warmka

30 Wednesday Sep 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This lawsuit, removed from Vanderburgh Superior Court to the Southern District of Indiana, involves a dispute over a “Driver’s Manual.” Defendant is alleged to have left the employ of Plaintiff and utilized portions of their proprietary driver’s manual with his new employer. Defendant removed the lawsuit to federal court.

Professional Transportation Inc. v. Robert E. Warmka

Court Case Number: 3:15-cv-00134-RLY-WGH
File Date: Monday, September 28, 2015
Plaintiff: Professional Transportation Inc.
Defendant: Robert E. Warmka
Cause: Indiana Trade Secret Violation, Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr.

Notice of Removal:

Complaint:

Pro Se Plaintiff sues The Mind Trust, Indianapolis Public Schools for Copyright Infringement (Again)

14 Monday Sep 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

At its core, this is a copyright lawsuit involving educational “models.” However, this lawsuit is particularly interesting for several reasons. Here are a few:

  1. It’s a pro se plaintiff, hence a non-traditional intellectual property complaint. While only copyright claims seem at issue, the complaint was filed (again, by a pro se) as a 42 USC 1983 civil rights complaint.
  2. Several large, high-profile defendants. Which will take the lead? The complaint focuses on the “Bridges to Success Education School Model” and the “Phalen Leadership Academies Education School Model.”
  3. The copyright application (included in the complaint) was apparently also a pro se copyright application.
  4. Plaintiff has requested a Cease and Desist Order preventing several schools systems from using specific educational “Models” until the lawsuit is resolved.
  5. This is the first “intellectual property” lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Indiana since June 19. Welcome back!

For now, I’ll leave it to the Defendants’ lawyers to parse all the facts and allegations in the Complaint. Stay tuned for updates.

Angela E. Brooks-Ngwenya v. The Mind Trust et al

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-00255-JD-SLC
File Date: Friday, September 11, 2015
Plaintiff: Angela E. Brooks-Ngwenya
Plaintiff Counsel: Angela E. Brooks-Ngwenya – Pro Se
Defendant: The Mind Trust, United Way of Central Indiana, Central Indiana Education Alliance, Phalen Leadership Academies, Indianapolis Public Schools
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jon E. DeGuilio
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Prior Court of Appeals Decision:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Baby Trend v. Phil and Teds Most Excellent Buggy Company

31 Monday Aug 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Plaintiff Baby Trend has used the registered NAVIGATOR trademark in connection with strollers and related products for over fifteen years.

Defendant, a New Zealand limited company, is alleged to be selling a stroller under an identical trademark (see Complaint below for photographs). Plaintiff’s cease-and-desist communications to Defendant beginning in June 2015 have proven unsuccessful, hence this lawsuit.

Baby Trend Inc. v. Phil and Teds Most Excellent Buggy Company Ltd.

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-01353-TWP-TAB
File Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Plaintiff: Baby Trend Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: R. Trevor Carter, Brad R. Maurer of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: Phil and Teds Most Excellent Buggy Company Ltd.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Another Richard Bell Copyright Suit

26 Friday Jun 2015

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Richard Bell is suing another website for allegedly using an unauthorized copy of his photograph of downtown Indianapolis. In a previous ruling against Mr. Bell (more here), the court was less than pleased with shortcomings in his complaint:

While providing specific facts is not necessary in a complaint, Mr. Bell is required to do more than recite legal conclusions of conduct with generic applicability to various defendants. . . . Legal conclusions are not afforded the assumption of truth. . . . [T]he Court will not afford the assumption of truth to the legal conclusions in Mr. Bell’s complaint. Neither does the Court find any factual allegations that are not legal conclusions, which could entitle him to relief and satisfy the standard of review.

Bell v. McCann, No. 1:13-CV-00799-TWP, 2014 WL 900961, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2014)

Mr. Bell did offer more than legal conclusions in this most recent Complaint (see below) by adding a factual allegation. And although he needed to allege “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Mr. Bell decided to unnecessarily add proof of these alleged facts. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). He included a link to a screenshot of the alleged infringement, although the link just resolves to a blank page.

In any case, don’t use pictures you find on the internet without authorization. Just don’t.

Richard N. Bell v. Proact Search LLC

Court Case Number: 1:15-cv-01005-JMS-DKL
File Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell of Bell Law Firm
Defendant: Proact Search LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue

*Dismissed August 5, 2015*