Noble Roman’s has filed yet another trademark lawsuit (the 18th since 2007) to enforce the terms of an expired franchise agreement. The Indiana-based pizza chain alleges that the South Carolina-based gas station chain formerly operated seven Noble Roman’s franchise locations and continued to use Noble Roman’s trade dress after the franchise agreements terminated.
Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00135-SEB-DML File Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011 Plaintiff: Noble Roman’s Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: Marisol Sanchez of Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP Defendant: Brabham Oil Company, Brabham Oil Company dba E-Z SHOP Cause: Lanham Act Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch
The Trustees of Purdue University v. Reinke Sports Group LLC et al
Purdue University, a world-renowned institution of higher learning, is located in West Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Indiana. In late 2009, the Defendants announced their intention to hold a foot racing event called “Home of Purdue Half Marathon” in the Lafayette-West-Lafayette area. Purdue’s attorneys sent the standard cease-and-desist letters objecting to the use of the University’s trademarks. Nevertheless, Defendant continued to advertise the event as being connected to and affiliated with the University. The event was run on Oct. 24, 2010 without permission from Purdue University.
This case was removed from Tippecanoe Circuit Court.
Court Case Number: 4:11-cv-00005-PPS -APR File Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011 Plaintiff: Trustees of Purdue University Plaintiff Counsel: William P. Kealey of Stuart & Branigin LLP Defendant: Reinke Sports Group LLC, Dean Reinke, Allsportcentral.com Inc. Defendant Counsel: Matthew S Tarkington and Peter S French of Lewis & Kappes PC Cause: Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Dilution, Cyberpiracy under the Lanham Act, Unfair Competition by Passing Off Court: Northern District of Indiana Judge: Chief Judge Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich
Plaintiff, an Iowa corporation, has used the trademark “TURBO” in connection with agricultural products like Coulter blades, disk blades, sweeps, plow shares and other tillage tools since 2005. The trademark was registered in 2007 for “Agricultural machine parts, namely, blades.” Defendant, an Indiana corporation, is allegedly selling similar goods under the same mark. In an effort to resolve the matter, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement in 2009, which Defendant has allegedly now breached.
Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00021-RL -RBC File Date: Friday, January 14, 2011 Plaintiff: Osmundson Mfg. Co. Plaintiff Counsel: Larry L. Barnard and Adrienne C. Romary of Carson Boxberger LLP Defendant: CFC Distributors Inc. Defendant Counsel:Paul B. Overhauser of Overhauser & Lindman LLC Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Description, Breach of Settlement Agreement Court: Northern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Rudy Lozano Referred To: Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey
Plaintiff Patricia Day is the lead singer of the Danish rockabilly band HorrorPops. Plaintiff claims a distinctive on-stage appearance, which combines:
(1) black hair meticulously done in 50’s pin-up fashion; (2) her retro hairstyle juxtaposed against conspicuous and heavily-applied black eye shadow and liner and deep red lipstick; (3) her form fitting ’50s-style pencil skirts that go just past the knees; (4) her full-color “sleeve tattoos” on both upper arms; and, most importantly (5) her distinctive instrumental extension of her personality: her giant tattooed upright bass.
Mattel allegedly created a Barbie doll using the likeness of Ms. Day without obtaining a license. In addition to being an unauthorized use of her likeness, the Barbie doll has caused Ms. Day particular anguish due to her feminist leanings and the confusion caused among peers and fans.
Why was this case filed in Indiana? Presumably to take advantage of Indiana’s right of publicity law, perhaps the most extensive right of publicity statute in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual “name, image and likeness,” but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms. Defendants Wonderama and Rainbow End are small Indiana toy stores (in Anderson and Daleville, respectively) that sold the allegedly infringing doll. Of course, the real targets of this lawsuit are Mattel (a Delaware corporation) and Hard Rock Cafe (a Florida corporation).
Did Mattel usurp Ms. Day’s likeness for the doll? You be the judge:
This should be an interesting case to follow step-by-step. Plaintiff has retained a few high-profile entertainment attorneys and we can expect Mattel and Hard Rock will do the same. I’ll keep you updated with each new filing. In the meantime, more images of Ms. Day for comparison sake:
Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-01689-RLY-MJD
File Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010
Plaintiff: Patricia Day
Plaintiff Counsel: John Tehranian and Peter Afrasiabi of ONE LLP
Defendants: Wonderama Toys, Rainbow’s End Collectibles, Mattel Corp., Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc.
Cause: Infringement of Right of Publicity (Indiana Code 32-36), False Association and False Endorsement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore
Coach strikes again. Coach makes handbags, wallets, etc. Defendant is accused of selling knockoffs from a retail store in Lafayette, Indiana. As always, Coach throws the kitchen sink at the Defendant.
Court Case Number: 4:10-cv-00100-JVB -PRC File Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 Plaintiff: Coach, Inc., Coach Services, Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: Alejandro Valle of Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP Defendant: Diggz Clothing LLC, Lori Harth Cause: Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, Trademark Dilution, Copyright Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Forgery under Ind. Code 35-43-5-2(b), Counterfeiting under Ind. Code 35-43-5-2(a) Court: Northern District of Indiana Judge: Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen Referred To: Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry
Noble Roman’s has filed yet another trademark lawsuit (the 18th since 2007) to enforce the terms of an expired franchise agreement. The Indiana-based pizza chain alleges that the South Carolina-based gas station chain formerly operated seven Noble Roman’s franchise locations and continued to use Noble Roman’s trade dress after the franchise agreements terminated.
