The defendants in this counterfeiting lawsuit operate an indoor baseball and softball training facility in Indianapolis. The plaintiff, Oakley, has accused the defendants of selling counterfeit sunglasses. The plaintiff’s investigators purchased counterfeit sunglasses from the defendants at the Edinburgh Sports Complex (i.e. a place where baseball is played) and at the defendant’s retail location in Indianapolis.
Oakley seeks an injunction, statutory damages, attorney fees’ and costs. Oakley is probably equally interested in obtaining information about the source of the counterfeit goods, possibly somewhere overseas.
Stay tuned for updates.
Oakley, Inc. v. Batter’s Box Training, LLC et al
Court Case Number: 1:22-cv-01596-RLY-MJD File Date: August 11, 2022 Plaintiff: Oakley, Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: Zachary D. Prendergast of Robbins, Kelly, Patterson & Tucker, LPA Defendants: Batter’s Box Training, LLC, Shawn Lessor, Brandi Pierson Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Richard L. Young Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore
BMI has found another target in Indiana. This time it’s the Thirty Six Saloon, a relaxed roadhouse alongside US-36 in Rockville, Indiana, home of the Parke County Covered Bridge Festival.
BMI allegedly reached out to the Defendants over thirty-five (35) times since April 2019 in an attempt to sell them the required public performance license to play music in the roadhouse. With no apparent satisfactory response, BMI now brings a lawsuit with 4 claims of copyright infringement based on the following playlist being performed at Thirty Six Saloon without a license on November 27, 2019 (the night before Thanksgiving):
Stay tuned for updates.
Broadcast Music, Inc. et al. v. Thirty-Six Saloon, LLC d/b/a Thirty Six Saloon Et al.
Case Number: 2:22-cv-00305-JRS-MJD File Date: July 27, 2022 Plaintiff: Broadcast Music, Inc.; Cotillion Music, Inc.; Terry Stafford Music Co.; House of Cash, Inc.; Sony/ATV Songs LLC d/b/a Sony/ATV Tree Publishing; Round Hill Music LP d/b/a Round Hill Works; Tokeco Tunes; EMI Blackwood Music Inc.; Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp.; Lucky Thumb Music; Noah’s Little Boat Music; Sea Gayle Music LLC d/b/a New Songs of Sea Gayle; Eldorotto Music Publishing; Big Gassed Hitties; Spirit Music Group Inc. d/b/a Spirit of Nashville One Plaintiff Counsel: April A. Wimberg of Dentons Bingham Greenebaum Defendant: Thirty-Six Saloon, LLC d/b/a Thirty Six Saloon; Mark Vanderheyden Cause: Copyright Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: James R. Sweeney II Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore
The plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is the American Automobile Association (AAA), i.e. that card in your wallet that you only pull out when you get a flat tire or lock your keys in the car. I’m actually surprised to read in the Complaint (below) that AAA has only 60 million members. I figured just about every driving American (231 million Americans held valid driving licenses in 2020) had a membership. For the low price of an annual membership, AAA is an absolute bargain when you’re stuck on the side of the highway far from home. Importantly for this lawsuit, AAA claims to also offer auto repair services.
The defendant is an Anderson, Indiana-based company with the patriotic name “All American Auto Hail Repair” using the internet domains AAA-HAILDENT-REPAIR.BUSINESS.SITE and AAAHAILDENTREPAIR.COM to advertise its services. The defendant is a small garage providing automobile dent removal services.
The defendant might challenge whether AAA really offers auto repairs under the AAA brands, or whether automobiles are just towed away by AAA trucks to have repairs performed by third-party repair companies. However, despite the surprisingly low number of members, AAA will still likely be considered a “famous” brand, which could grant it broader protection for ancillary goods/services like auto dent repairs.
It seems like a quick resolution, although perhaps legally unnecessary, would be for the defendant to just select a different domain name(s). AllAmericanAutoDentRepair.com is available right now, just sayin’. Some fights aren’t worth fighting.
Stay tuned for updates.
The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. All American Auto Hail Dent Repair LLC d/b/a AAA Hail Repair et al.
Case Number: 1:22-cv-00568-JPH-MJD File Date: March 23, 2022 Plaintiff: The American Automobile Association, Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: David O. Tittle, Elizabeth S. Traylor of Dentons Bingham Greenebaum LLP Defendant: All American Auto Hail Dent Repair LLC d/b/a AAA Hail Repair, Lavern Pflugh Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Cybersquatting, Federal Trademark Dilution, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Indiana Trademark Dilution, Indiana Unfair Competition Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: James Patrick Hanlon Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore
This copyright lawsuit involves a painter attempting to stop an online merchandise platform from using his artwork on customizable products. The Defendant t-shirt website, like thousands of other sites, sells blank apparel that can be customized with a user-uploaded image or text.
Per the Complaint (below), the John Doe defendants (1-11) have, via separate registered accounts, been uploading a digital copy of one of Plaintiff’s paintings since 2018 and using the online platform to create unauthorized products which they presumably then sell elsewhere. Plaintiff’s counsel first contacted the Defendant website in April 2020 about the unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s artwork, seemingly with no acceptable resolution or cessation.
In lawsuits such as this with numerous John Doe defendants, the first and most difficult hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to discover the identity of the John Does. The similarity in the John Doe’s account names on the t-shirt platform seem to indicate that it’s just one source (an individual or small group) that is repeatedly ordering new product. I wouldn’t expect any response to be filed by the John Doe Defendants, who will likely disappear altogether, and probably a long road of discovery for the Plaintiff perhaps eventually leading to a default judgment against the determined “guilty” party.
The vicarious infringement and contributory infringement claims against the online t-shirt website will be interesting to follow. Presumably, having been put on notice of the unauthorized use in April 2020, the t-shirt website might be expected to take more action to prevent future infringements of the same image. But how closely do they (or should they be expected to) patrol user-submitted images for infringement? It seems like the t-shirt printing and shipping process would be almost completely automated following the user submission, with no copyright verification step in between.
Stay tuned for updates.
Thomas v. ooShirts, Inc. et al.
Case Number: 1:21-cv-02519-TWP-MJD File Date: Friday, September 24, 2021 Plaintiff: Andrew “Andy” Thomas Plaintiff Counsel: Sean J. Quinn of SouthBank Legal: LaDue | Curran | Kuehn, Oliver Maguire of Evans & Dixon, LLC Defendant: ooShirts, Inc., John Does 1-11 Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Infringement, Contributory Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore
The Plaintiff in this copyright lawsuit is an infant photographer who uses photo editing software to add teeth to her infant subjects. Depending on your aesthetic tastes, the resulting photographs range somewhere between cute and horrifying.
The Defendant sells teeth whitening and oral care products and allegedly used one of the Plaintiff’s photographs in a Facebook advertisement in August 2019. The photograph was altered to whiten the teeth and remove the Plaintiff’s watermark. The advertisement (below) included a link to the Defendant’s website and a “Shop Now” button.
It’s hard to see this lawsuit going very far; it’s slightly ridiculous it had to be filed at all. This situation seems like it would be a perfect fit for a small claims copyright court. Hopefully the parties can soon find an amicable resolution, like an appropriate license fee, for the (possibly) 4one-time use of Plaintiff’s photograph. If the Defendant somehow determines it would make more sense to litigate, we might see them challenge jurisdiction in Indiana.
Stay tuned for updates.
Haehl v. Dr. Brite, LLC
Case Number: 1:21-cv-02072-JPH-MJD File Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 Plaintiff: Amy Haehl Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Stohry Dean LLP Defendant: Dr. Brite, LLC Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement, Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: James Patrick Hanlon Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore
Indiana Intellectual Property Blog 