• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Mark J. Dinsmore

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Angela Ethel Brooks-Ngwenya v. IPS

08 Friday Apr 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Litigation Update, Mark J. Dinsmore, Sarah Evans Barker

Angela Ethel Brooks-Ngwenya v. Indianapolis Public Schools

Plaintiff (handling this case pro se) alleges that IPS has infringed the copyrighted work “TIRS” (Transitioning Into Responsible Students), an educational program she claimed to develop while working at IPS.

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00483-SEB-MJD
File Date: Friday, April 08, 2011
Plaintiff: Angela Ethel Brooks-Ngwenya
Plaintiff Counsel: Angela Ethel Brooks-Ngwenya PRO SE
Defendant: Indianapolis Public Schools
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Trademark Infringement, Misconduct of Attorney
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – ChaCha Search v. HTC America

22 Tuesday Feb 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Dilution, Litigation Update, Mark J. Dinsmore, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, William T. Lawrence

ChaCha Search, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. et al

ChaCha is a Delaware corporation based in Carmel, Indiana. It provides a mobile-based search engine that utilizes the assistance of human guides to provide relevant search results. The CHACHA trademark was registered in 2007 for “Search engine services, namely, providing search engines for obtaining data on a global computer network; Search engine services, namely, providing specific information as requested by customers via the Internet in the nature of customized searching, in Class 42.”

Defendant HTC seeks to introduce a new smartphone called the “HTC ChaCha,” prompting Plaintiff to institute this action.

What do you think? Do you read the services listed in ChaCha’s registration above to include “smartphones”? Is ChaCha overreaching here? Would ChaCha’s money have been better spent on additional trademark registrations if they wanted to also protect ChaCha for “mobile phones,” which are in Class 9?

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00262-WTL-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Plaintiff: ChaCha Search, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry and Michael A. Wukmer of Ice Miller, LLP
Defendant: HTC America, Inc.
HTC Corporation
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relieve
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Pitonyak Machinery v. Brandt Industries

18 Friday Feb 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Debra McVicker Lynch, False Designation of Origin, Litigation Update, Mark J. Dinsmore, Tanya Walton Pratt, William T. Lawrence

Pitonyak Machinery Corp. v. Brandt Industries, Ltd. et al

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00233-TWP-DML
File Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011
Plaintiff: Pitonyak Machinery Corp.
Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel T. Earle, James E. Shlesinger of Shlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey LLP; John D. Pettie, Thomas S. Stone of Dover Dixon Horne PLLC
Defendant: Brandt Industries, Ltd., Brandt Agricultural Products, Ltd.
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Right of Publicity Litigation Update – Patricia Day v. Wonderama Toys et al

28 Tuesday Dec 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

False Association and False Endorsement, Infringement of Right of Publicity, Litigation Update, Mark J. Dinsmore, Richard L. Young

Patricia Day v. Wonderama Toys et al

Plaintiff Patricia Day is the lead singer of the Danish rockabilly band HorrorPops. Plaintiff claims a distinctive on-stage appearance, which combines:

(1) black hair meticulously done in 50’s pin-up fashion; (2) her retro hairstyle juxtaposed against conspicuous and heavily-applied black eye shadow and liner and deep red lipstick; (3) her form fitting ’50s-style pencil skirts that go just past the knees; (4) her full-color “sleeve tattoos” on both upper arms; and, most importantly (5) her distinctive instrumental extension of her personality: her giant tattooed upright bass.

Mattel allegedly created a Barbie doll using the likeness of Ms. Day without obtaining a license. In addition to being an unauthorized use of her likeness, the Barbie doll has caused Ms. Day particular anguish due to her feminist leanings and the confusion caused among peers and fans.

Why was this case filed in Indiana? Presumably to take advantage of Indiana’s right of publicity law, perhaps the most extensive right of publicity statute in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual “name, image and likeness,” but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms. Defendants Wonderama and Rainbow End are small Indiana toy stores (in Anderson and Daleville, respectively) that sold the allegedly infringing doll. Of course, the real targets of this lawsuit are Mattel (a Delaware corporation) and Hard Rock Cafe (a Florida corporation).

Did Mattel usurp Ms. Day’s likeness for the doll? You be the judge:

This should be an interesting case to follow step-by-step. Plaintiff has retained a few high-profile entertainment attorneys and we can expect Mattel and Hard Rock will do the same. I’ll keep you updated with each new filing. In the meantime, more images of Ms. Day for comparison sake:

Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-01689-RLY-MJD
File Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010
Plaintiff: Patricia Day
Plaintiff Counsel: John Tehranian and Peter Afrasiabi of ONE LLP
Defendants: Wonderama Toys, Rainbow’s End Collectibles, Mattel Corp., Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc.
Cause: Infringement of Right of Publicity (Indiana Code 32-36), False Association and False Endorsement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

View this document on Scribd

Southern District of Indiana swears in new Magistrate

18 Saturday Dec 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Mark J. Dinsmore, Richard L. Young

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana announced that Mark J. Dinsmore took the oath to become a United States Magistrate Judge on December 17, 2010. Chief Judge Richard L. Young administered the oath in his courtroom in the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Indianapolis. A formal investiture ceremony will be held at a later date. The position Judge Dinsmore fills became available due to the elevation of Jane E. Magnus-Stinson to an Article III judgeship, effective June 9, 2010.

Magistrate judges preside over many pretrial proceedings in both civil and criminal cases in federal court, including intellectual property cases. A critical part of the job is conducting mediation and settlement proceedings in civil cases, helping parties settle their disputes by agreement. United States Magistrate Judges are appointed by the Judges of the U.S. District Court for a term of eight years, and are eligible for reappointment to successive terms.

Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (327)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (603)
  • Indianapolis (51)
  • Intellectual Property (662)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (595)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (215)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (369)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (363)
  • 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.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 81 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...