Tag Archives: Mark J. Dinsmore

Cute/Horrifying Baby Teeth Photograph Leads to Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

26 Monday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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

Complaint:

Mailbox Drone Manufacturer Invites Copyright Infringement Lawsuit by Stealing Product Photographs from Competitor

17 Thursday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit is an Illinois-based manufacturer of smart mailboxes and customized mail delivery drones.

Unfortunately, this copyright infringement lawsuit doesn’t involve the very interesting mailbox and drone technology but instead focuses on two photographs of Plaintiff’s product. The Defendants, a competing drone mailbox company from Indianapolis, allegedly copied the product photographs, make slight modifications to remove Plaintiff’s identifiers, and included the altered photographs in its own presentation materials, including at a major industry trade show.

Reviewing the images included in the Complaint (below), it certainly seems like these are fairly blatant, and slightly ridiculous, instances of copyright infringement. The Complaint also alleges several other claims based on the Defendants’ alleged attempts to “unfairly advance and promote the commercial identity, status and reputation of the Defendant Companies, to solicit the sale of their products and services to customers and potential customers, and to solicit investors, potential investors and partners, in competition with Plaintiff.”

I’m looking forward to the Defendants’ Answer and their possible explanation for the use of the altered photographs. Stay tuned for updates.

Valqari LLC v. Dronedek Corporation et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-01754-JMS-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Plaintiff: Valqari LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate, E. Sahara Williams of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Louis J. Alex of Cook Alex Ltd.
Defendant: Dronedek Corporation, Dronedek LLC, Daniel O’Toole
Cause: Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Representations, False Designations of Origin, Reverse Passing Off, Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Rural Internet Provider sues Ex-Employee for False Designation of Origin, Trade Secret Violations, Breach of Contract

09 Tuesday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This lawsuit involves a rural broadband internet provider and an ex-employee who allegedly misappropriated proprietary information to set up a competing company.

The primary Defendant, Jarman, is alleged to have undertaken several actions contrary to the interest of his employer, as well as making false representations of an ongoing affiliation with the Plaintiff, Watch Communications of Rushville, Indiana, while conducting business on behalf of his new company. While much of the Complaint (below) implicates employment law issues, readers of the Indiana Intellectual Property Blog will be particularly interested in the “false designation of origin” claim based on an unregistered trademark, in addition to the trade secret claims. The Defendants are alleged to have misappropriated Plaintiff’s financial records, business, marketing, and strategic plans, customer lists, and personnel and payroll records regarding current and former employees, vendors, and suppliers.

As a reminder, a Complaint represents just one party’s side of the story, and the Defendants’ Answer may present the same scenarios in a much different light. Often the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Stay tuned for updates, particularly on the intellectual property-related claims.

Watch Communications v. Jarman et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00550-RLY-MJD
File Date: Monday, March 8, 2021
Plaintiff: W.A.T.C.H. TV Company d/b/a Watch Communications
Plaintiff Counsel: Rachel J. Guin, Andrew P. Simmons of Rothberg Logan & Warsco LLP
Defendant: Greg Jarman, Roger Criblez, Tom Kolb, B.Todd Mosby, GRiT Technologies, LLC
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract (Confidentiality), Breach of Contract (Competing During Employment), Breach of Contract (Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty), Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Civil Conspiracy, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

New Indianapolis Bouldering Facility sues Accusers for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement

12 Friday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The Plaintiff in this action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement is a yet-to-open rock climbing gym in Indianapolis, Indiana. More specifically, the planned gym will provide a venue for “bouldering,” a type of rock climbing low enough to the ground to be done without safety ropes.

The Defendants operate similar “bouldering” facilities in Washington (State), Texas, and Minneapolis. As admitted in the Complaint (see Complaint, Section 10, below), “For a brief period of time in late 2020, one of Plaintiff’s members used content from one of Defendant’s websites as placeholder text during the website design process. This text was removed after two weeks of being publically available, and has been replaced by Plaintiff’s current website: https://www.northmassboulder.com/.”

The Defendants contacted the Plaintiff via counsel in December 2020, at which time the “infringing” content was removed from Plaintiff’s website. Nonetheless, dialogue between the parties’ counsel was apparently unproductive and it became clear that Defendants were going to sue Plaintiff. As such, the Indianapolis-based Plaintiff seized the initiative and filed a declaratory judgment action to prove their lack of infringement.

Declaratory judgment actions are always interesting as they flip the usual filing paradigm (i.e. the infringed filing against the infringer). There is an admitted temporary use by Plaintiff of some of the Defendant’s online content but other issues like trade dress and trade secrets are raised in the Complaint and will be interesting to follow to resolution. Stay tuned for updates.

Indianapolis Bouldering, LLC v. BP Holdings Company, LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00344-JMS-JMD
File Date: February 11, 2021 
Plaintiff: Indianapolis Bouldering, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Steven T. Henke of TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
Defendant: BP Holdings Company, LLC, Seattle Bouldering Project, LLC, Minneapolis Bouldering Project, LLC, and Austin Bouldering Project, LLC
Cause: Invalidity or Unenforceability of Intellectual Property Rights, Non-Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, Non-Violation of Alleged Trade Secrets
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Georgia Used Car Dealership Software Company Sued for “Repeated and Brazen Actions”

20 Tuesday Oct 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Defendant in this lawsuit, a used car dealership management software company from Georgia, is accused of “repeated and brazen actions…designed to deceive and sow confusion in the marketplace.” Among the alleged actions of Defendant are illegitimate procurement of Plaintiff’s proprietary Run Lists (i.e. “lists containing information regarding automobile auctions”), use of a “bastardized” version of Plaintiff’s logo, and falsely claiming affiliation with Plaintiff.

The Defendant is also accused of inappropriately using Plaintiff’s AUTONIQ trademark in keyword advertising. The Defendant further used the AUTONIQ trademark in a deceptive email campaign which caused Plaintiff to receive inquiries from confused consumers.

Is it just me, or does the “bastardized” logo (see Complaint paragraph 23) actually look more like a goose rather than a “lower in quality” version of the Plaintiff’s eagle?

I’ll reserve judgment until the Answer is filed, as complaints can’t be relied on for the entire story, but this paints the picture of a Defendant who is willing to flout trademark law for a perceived competitive advantage.

Stay tuned for updates.

Adesa, Inc. and Autoniq, LLC v. Laser Appraiser, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:20-cv-02433-RLY-MJD
File Date: September 21, 2020
Plaintiff: Adesa, Inc., Autoniq, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Laser Appraiser, LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Conversion
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint: