Tag Archives: Mark J. Dinsmore

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:

Painter sues T-Shirt Printing Website for Unauthorized Use of Presidential Painting

27 Monday Sep 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

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

Complaint:

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: