• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Mark J. Dinsmore

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

09 Tuesday Mar 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Contract (Competing During Employment), Breach of Contract (Confidentiality), Breach of Contract (Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty), Civil Conspiracy, False Designation of Origin, Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mark J. Dinsmore, Richard L. Young, Unfair Competition, Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016

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:

View this document on Scribd

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

12 Friday Feb 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Mark J. Dinsmore, Non-Violation of Alleged Trade Secrets

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:

View this document on Scribd

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

20 Tuesday Oct 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Conversion, Federal False Advertising, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act, Mark J. Dinsmore, Richard L. Young

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:

View this document on Scribd

Plan B Games files Answer in Great Western Trail Litigation

01 Tuesday Oct 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Conspiracy, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Mark J. Dinsmore, Sarah Evans Barker

Plan B Games has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses in the “Great Western Trail” lawsuit filed by Stronghold Games.

View this document on Scribd

The Answer is the standard cut-and-paste “Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations,” with just a few admissions to factual information.

The Affirmative Defenses, starting on Page 25,  challenge the Plaintiff’s rights in the GREAT WESTERN TRAIL trademark.

Stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE: This lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on January 30, 2020.

Indie Game Studios, LLC v. Plan B Games, Inc et al.

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-1492-SEB-MJD
File Date: Monday, April 15, 2019
Plaintiff: Indie Game Studios, LLC d/b/a Stronghold Games LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick J. Olmstead, Jr., John Bradshaw
Defendant: Plan B Games, Inc., Plan B Games Europe GMBH
Defendant Counsel: Burton S. Ehrlich of Ladas & Parry LLP, Darlene Seymour
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conspiracy
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Fan Company sues Unauthorized Online Dealer for Trademark Infringement

04 Wednesday Sep 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Declaratory Judgment, Dilution, False Designation of Origin, Injunctive Relief, James Patrick Hanlon, Mark J. Dinsmore, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment

The Plaintiff, a fan company based in Zionsville, Indiana, sells its electric fans to consumers via its website, showrooms or through authorized dealers.

The Defendant is alleged to be offering unauthorized sales of Plaintiff’s fans at the website http://www.lightingmerchant.com. Importantly for consumers, electric fans sold by Defendant are not covered by Plaintiff’s warranty.

The Complaint (below) alleges that the Defendant purchases the products from one or more authorized dealers and then sells the products to retail customers. The identity of the authorized dealers is not revealed in the Complaint.

Fanimation, Inc. v. Decor Selections, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-03648-JPH-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Plaintiff: Fanimation, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Harold C. Moore, Michael A. Swift of Maginot, Moore & Beck, LLP
Defendant: Decor Selections, LLC d/b/a Lighting Merchant
Cause
: Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Dilution, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

← Older posts

Categories

  • Artists (20)
  • Authors (18)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (25)
  • Business Law (5)
  • Copyright (254)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (4)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (473)
  • Indianapolis (42)
  • Intellectual Property (526)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (464)
  • Musicians (10)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (145)
  • Patent (42)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (53)
  • Southern District of Indiana (270)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (13)
  • Trade Secret (14)
  • Trademark (275)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×