Tag Archives: Mark J. Dinsmore

Muncie Fire Captain sued over EMT Exam Cheating Scheme

18 Thursday May 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Here’s a lawsuit straight out of Bayside High School. The lawsuit involves a Muncie, Indiana Fire Captain who allegedly has been providing test questions to individuals before they take their tests. The problem is these aren’t 9th grade English tests, but rather important emergency medical technician (EMT) examinations, meaning unqualified cheaters could be made responsible for saving the lives of the public. This is unfair to everyone, including the creators of the test, who have to rewrite the compromised examinations, and unqualified EMTs, who are advanced to a position where they might not be able to properly carry out their duties. It is most unfair to the endangered public, who could receive unqualified medical treatment and possibly die as a result.

The National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT), which creates the EMT examinations, is now suing the Fire Captain, along with two accomplice test memorizers, for copyright infringement, breach of contract, and trade secret claims. The two test memorizers would allegedly take the examinations, memorize the questions, and then report back to the Fire Captain, who would use that information to train fire department recruits. The test policies specifically forbid such actions.

The “years-long scheme” was reported by a whistleblower in March 2023, leading to an investigation and now this lawsuit. The whistleblower paints a portrait of more than just an overzealous instructor, claiming that the Fire Captain forced his employees to cheat on NREMT examinations “through abuse of power and harassment.”

Stay tuned for updates.

The National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians v. Dulaney et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00840-JRS-MJD
File Date: May 15, 2023
Plaintiff: The National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians
Plaintiff Counsel: Kandi Kilkelly Hidde, Cameron S. Trachtman of Frost Brown Todd LLP
Defendant: Troy Delaney, Jacob Sutton, Adam Burk
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract, Violation of the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Trademark Owner Successfully Overcomes USPTO 2(d) Refusal but Still Gets Sued

17 Monday Apr 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This lawsuit highlights an awkward but common situation where a senior trademark owner and the USPTO disagree on whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two trademarks. If a junior user’s trademark is allowed to be registered by the USPTO, sometimes a senior user has no option but to bring a federal lawsuit and/or a TTAB cancellation proceeding.

HealthSmart Foods, an Evansville, Indiana-based producer of health food snacks (e.g. snack bars, snack bites, shakes, and candies) has filed a trademark lawsuit against Sweet Nothings, a small California company selling healthy family snacks like packaged smoothies and “nut butter bites.”

HealthSmart Foods sells a line of snack clusters, crisps and patties called SWEET NOTHINGS.

Sweet Nothings has obtained a trademark registration for its SWEET NOTHINGS trademark after successfully overcoming a 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal citing the HealthSmart Foods’ trademark registration. The 2(d) refusal was seemingly overcome with evidence that the “SWEET NOTHINGS” trademark is very highly suggestive of the type of goods and therefore entitled to a very narrow scope of protection. Specifically, the evidence consisted of fourteen examples of entities in HealthSmart’s industry who use the marks “SWEET NOTHINGS” or “SWEET NOTHING” as a source indicator in connection with goods and services legally identical to HealthSmart’s goods:

  • Sweet Nothing Desserts, LLC – Located in Georgia, they bake cakes and cookies to order
  • Sweet Nothing Fine Cakes and Desserts – Located in Wisconsin, they bake high quality
  • cakes
  • Sweet Nothings Cake Shop – Located in Southern California, they offer a variety of
  • baked goods
  • Sweet Nothings Cakes – Located in Wisconsin, they bake cakes for special occasions
  • Sweet Nothings – Located in Ohio, they offer a variety of snacks
  • Sweet Nothings Cookies – Located in Arkansas, they offer custom cookies
  • Sweet Nothings Custom Cookies – Located in North Carolina, they offer custom cookies
  • Luv Ice Cream – Located in Minnesota, they offer “Sweet Nothings” branded fruit and
  • candy
  • Sweet Nothings – Located in New Jersey, they offer a variety of chocolates and candy
  • Sweet Nothings Snacks – Located in Utah, they offer a variety of snacks
  • Sweet Nothings – a brand of nougat cluster candy offered by Healthsmart, located in Indiana
  • Krissy’s Sweet Nothings – an online business that offers cakes
  • Sweet Nothings & Pastries – Located in Texas, they offer a variety of cupcakes and cakes
  • Sweet Nothings Cakes and Confections – Located in Missouri, they offer a variety of
  • cupcakes, cakes, pastries, and pies

HealthSmart Foods clearly does not agree with the USPTO’s decision to register Sweet Nothings’ trademark and now seeks the intervention of the Southern District of Indiana. I’d expect a similar “very highly suggestive” and “narrow scope of protection” defense to be presented, arguing that the Indiana company simply doesn’t have a strong enough trademark to enforce. Based on the location of the defendant (California), we might also see some preliminary jurisdictional challenges. Or, if the defendant doesn’t have the stomach for a legal fight in federal court in Indiana, a quick name change could be a potential outcome.

Stay tuned for updates.

HealthSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 3:23-cv-00060
File Date: April 13, 2023
Plaintiff: HealthSmart Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Joshua A. Claybourn of Jackson Kelly PLLC
Defendant: Beth Porter, Sweet Nothings, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, State Trademark Dilution, Injury to Business Reputation
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Oakley sues Indianapolis Indoor Baseball Training Facility over Sale of Counterfeit Sunglasses

12 Friday Aug 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

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

Complaint:

BMI sues Rockville Bar for Copyright Infringement

02 Tuesday Aug 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

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

Complaint:

AAA sues Anderson’s All American Auto for Trademark Infringement, Cybersquatting

24 Thursday Mar 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

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

Complaint: