In addition to using an identical name, the defendant in the latest Indiana trademark lawsuit is accused of submitting a fraudulent letter to the Indiana Secretary of State claiming permission to use the name. The Kingston, Indiana grocery store is allegedly operating as “My Market” without the authorization of the plaintiff, who has prior rights in the name.
The plaintiff and defendants likely have some personal background that isn’t discussed in the Complaint (below). If so, the Answer may shed more light on why the defendant thought it had permission to use the name “My Market.”
Stay tuned for updates.
My Market LLC v. Batth Markets Inc. et al.
Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01335-MPB-MJD File Date: August 6, 2024 Plaintiff: My Market LLC Plaintiff Counsel: C. Christopher Dubes, Amanda C. Delekta of Carson LLP Defendant: Batth Markets Inc., Chhaterpal Singh Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Trademark Dilution, Federal Unfair Competition, Conversion Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Matthew P. Brookman Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore
A Fishers, Indiana-based sauna company has been sued for the unauthorized use of a towel rack photograph on their website. Unlike many of these photography copyright lawsuits, the defendant did not immediately settle and has filed its Answer (below). The parties have begun the initial phases of discovery, having already submitted initial disclosures and filed their witness and exhibit lists.
Stay tuned for updates.
Howarth v. My Sauna World LLC
Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00734-MPB-KMB File Date: April 29, 2024 Plaintiff: Morgan Howarth Plaintiff Counsel: Craig Sanders of Sanders Law Group Defendant: My Sauna World LLC Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Matthew P. Brookman Referred To: Kellie M. Barr
Atlas Van Lines of Evansville, Indiana, has been transporting goods under the name “Atlas” since 1948. The Atlas family of companies includes more than 430 independent Atlas agencies across the U.S. and Canada, plus authorized partners in 140 countries.
A pair of Georgia companies have apparently begun offering moving services under the fictitious business name “Atlas Mover Group,” allegedly constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.
A cease-and-desist letter was sent to the Georgia companies in February and Atlas Van Lines now seeks court intervention in the Southern District of Indiana.
Stay tuned for updates.
AWGI, LLC et al. v. Atlas Mover Group LLC et al.
Court Case Number: 3:24-cv-00116-MPB-CSW File Date: July 15, 2024 Plaintiff: AWGI, LLC, Atlas Van Lines, Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: Mark F. Warzecha, Esq. of Widerman Malek, PL Defendant: Atlas Mover Group LLC, United Best Moving LLC Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Violation of the Federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Matthew P. Brookman Referred To: Crystal S. Wildeman
This lawsuit involves the design and construction of a new headquarters for Andretti Global in Fishers, Indiana. The Plaintiff is a construction company that had been contracted to design and build the new facility. The Complaint (below) details how the business relationship went downhill pretty much from the onset, starting with late payments. The contract was terminated for cause in April 7, 2023. The Plaintiff disputes the stated grounds for termination. Construction on the facility has now been halted, presumably pending the outcome of this litigation or the related mediation.
The lawsuit includes a claim for copyright infringement due to the Defendants’ alleged post-termination use of the Plaintiff’s architectural designs. However, the Complaint does not state whether the architectural designs are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, which is mandatory for a federal copyright lawsuit, so the copyright claim may be subject to a 12(b) motion.
The Complaint quotes one of the Defendants’ representatives as saying “If you want to go to war with a bunch of international billionaires, we’ll bury you.” The Plaintiff apparently has not been deterred by the threat of “war,” filing this lawsuit to insist that the “international billionaires” pay up the ~$1 million allegedly owed at the time of termination.
The lawsuit was originally filed in Hamilton County Court on May 24, 2023 and removed to the Southern District of Indiana on June 19, 2023. Stay tuned for updates.
DCG Indiana, Inc. v. Cardinal XLIII, LLC et al.
Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-01058-MPB-KMB File Date: June 19, 2023 Plaintiff: DGC Indiana, Inc. d/b/a Dillon Construction Group a/k/a/ Dillon Construction a/k/a DCG Construction Plaintiff Counsel: J. Michael Cavosie, J. Greg Easter, Elizabeth S. Schmitt, Katelyn Klingler of EASTER & CAVOSIE Defendant: Cardinal XLIII, LLC, Motorsport Real Estate Ventures, LLC d/b/a Andretti Motorsports; Studio M Architecture and Planning, LLC, Gradex, Inc., Glenmark Construction Company, Inc. Cause: Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Transfer, Copyright Infringement, Lien Foreclosure Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Matthew P. Brookman Referred To: Kellie M. Barr
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
Indiana Intellectual Property Blog 