Tag Archives: Richard L. Young

Atlas Van Lines sues Atlas Moving Systems for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

27 Tuesday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Plaintiffs in this trademark lawsuit, Atlas Van Lines of Evansville, Indiana, have 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.

The Defendant is alleged to have offered its moving services to the public since 2015 under the fictitious business name “Atlas Moving Systems AMS,” constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The Plaintiffs first sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Defendants in September 2017. A follow-up letter was sent in November 2020, over three (3) years later. There is no explanation given in the Complaint (below) for the lengthy delay by Plaintiffs in enforcing their trademark rights. However, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction has also been filed along with the Complaint so they’ve clearly determined that they can now no longer abide the Defendants’ ongoing presence in the marketplace. The supporting Memorandum (below) documents instances of actual consumer confusion.

Stay tuned for updates.

AWGI, LLC et al. v. CLD Trucking Co. d/b/a Atlas Moving Systems AMS

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00117-RLY-MPB
File Date: Thursday, July 22, 2021
Plaintiff: AWGI, LLC, Atlas Van Lines, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mark. F. Warzecha, Esq. of Wideman Malek, PL
Defendant: CLD Trucking Co. d/b/a Atlas Moving Systems AMS
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

Noble Roman’s sues Ex-Franchisee for Unpaid Royalties, Underreported Sales Figures

09 Wednesday Jun 2021

Posted by in Business Law, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Noble Roman’s is becoming a regular on this blog. It begs the question, why do they have so many intellectual property problems? Rather than dumping piles of money into back-end enforcement, perhaps they should spend more time on front-end due diligence and avoid many of these problems altogether. Given that most/all of the lawsuits involve ex-franchisees, perhaps Noble Roman’s should re-examine their franchise agreement or franchisee selection process. At least this lawsuit leaves out the ridiculous abandoned theft and conversion claims from their previous complaints.

As with most of their previous lawsuits, Noble Roman’s is suing a prior franchisee for breach of their franchise agreement. Here, the Defendants, with gas station locations in Florida and Georgia, have allegedly not paid the required royalty, underreported sales figures, failed to make available all Noble Roman’s menu items, failed to maintain required business hours, and sold non-Noble Roman’s food offerings.

The Complaint was originally filed in Marion County Superior Circuit Court for Marion County, Indiana but Defendants’ counsel has filed a Notice of Removal to the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Defendants’ counsel is Donald E. Pinaud, Jr. of Jacksonville, Florida.

Stay tuned for updates.

Noble’s Roman’s, Inc. v. AMI Stores Management, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-01539-RLY-TAB
File Date: Sunday, June 6, 2021
Plaintiff: Noble Roman’s, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Jaime L. Meyer, Jeffrey D. Roberts of Hollingsworth Roberts Means LLC
Defendant: AMI Stores Management, Inc., AMI 57 LLC d/b/a AMI 70 Food Mart, AMI 63 LLC d/b/a AMI 63 Food Mart
Cause: Breach of Franchise Agreement, Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Energy Drink Company Sues Automotive Repair Company for Trademark Infringement

24 Monday May 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Evansville, Indiana-based Full Throttle Automotive, an auto repair shop, is being sued for trademark infringement by Energy Beverages, producer of Full Throttle energy drinks. The Complaint (below) highlights Energy Beverages’ long history of advertising in auto racing, including being the title sponsor of the National Hot Rod Association’s primary drag racing event.

The auto repair shop has also sponsored vehicles in motorsport events. Energy Beverages sent a cease-and-desist letter in October 2020, but Full Throttle Automotive has refused to discontinue use of its trademark.

Stay tuned for the Answer in the next few weeks, when we’ll likely find out how long Full Throttle Automotive has been using their “Full Throttle” name. They posted their current name and logo on Facebook back in 2014, and it’s likely they were using their name even before that, so they may have a strong acquiescence or laches defense based on many years of inaction from Energy Beverages.

A possible outcome could be a compromise whereby Full Throttle Automotive agrees not to sponsor NHRA events, presumably the most likely source of consumer confusion.

Energy Beverages LLC v. Full Throttle Automotive LLC

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00081-RLY-MPB
File Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Plaintiff: Energy Beverages LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: James W. Riley, Jr., Jaclyn M. Flint of Riley Bennett Egloff LLP
Defendant: Full Throttle Automotive LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

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:

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

20 Tuesday Oct 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

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: