Tag Archives: Sarah Evans Barker

Knockoff Chinese Jewelry prompts Indiana Copyright Lawsuit

12 Wednesday Apr 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

An Indiana copyright lawsuit has been filed by Taylor Shaye Designs, a jewelry designer and retailer/wholesaler from Louisiana.

The defendant, located in Whitestown, Indiana, is the apparent U.S. sales and distribution arm of the global Shein conglomerate, a Chinese online fast fashion retailer that is known for selling inexpensive apparel, jewelry, and other accessories.

The defendant is accused of copying the plaintiff’s registered “Let’s Go Girls” jewelry design.

The standard for determining whether the reproduction right in a copyrighted work has been infringed is “substantial similarity.” Blog readers can judge for themselves whether the above designs have substantial similarity. Hopefully the lawsuit will see an argument that the designs are not substantially similar but I anticipate either a jurisdictional challenge or a discrete settlement as the most likely outcomes. Either way, stay tuned to this blog for updates.

Taylor Shaye Designs LLC v. Shein Distribution Corp.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB
File Date: April 11, 2023
Plaintiff: Taylor Shaye Designs LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Story Dean LLP
Defendant: Shein Distribution Corp.
Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

AV Intern sues Kilroy’s Sports for Non-Payment of Wages, Copyright Infringement

09 Tuesday Aug 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A popular college bar in Bloomington, Indiana is accused of non-payment of $12,000 to an intern who had been creating content for their social media accounts. The Complaint (below) details several months of promised, delayed, and ultimately unrealized paychecks.

The Complaint includes claims for declaratory judgment of copyright ownership and copyright infringement, but I assume that the intern is less interested in ownership of the bar’s social media content and more interested in getting paid for months of labor. The specific works alleged to have been infringed are not identified in the Complaint and there is no mention of registration of any works, a prerequisite for a copyright infringement claim, so the copyright claims could be vulnerable to challenge. As jurisdiction for the lawsuit is based on the copyright and declaratory judgment of copyright ownership claims, we might see an early battle over jurisdiction.

Ideally, the intern will just get paid what he is owed before lawyers for both sides get deep into researching and drafting motions. Stay tuned for updates.

Schwartz v. Kilroy’s North America, LLC et al

Case Number: 1:22-cv-01563-SEB-DML
File Date: August 5, 2022
Plaintiff: Elijah Schwartz
Plaintiff Counsel: Kimberly D. Jeselskis, B.J. Brinkerhoff, Hannah Kaufman Joseph of Jeselskis Kaufman and Joseph, LLC
Defendant: Kilroy’s North America, LLC, Kilroy’s Sports, LLC, Kilroy’s on Kirkwood, LLC
Cause: Violation of the Wage Payment Act, Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, Fraud, Declaratory Judgment of Copyright Ownership, Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Poulsen files Trademark Lawsuit in Indiana over Counterfeit “Ingrid Bergman” Roses

15 Thursday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet –William Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet

Poulsen Roser is a family-owned Danish company world-famous for its breeding of distinctive rose varieties, for which it obtains patent and trademark protection. A lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of Indiana involving their INGRID BERGMAN rose, a “unique currant red hybrid tea rose variety.” Poulsen owns a U.S. trademark registration for INGRID BERGMAN in connection with “live roses.”

The Defendants operate one of the U.S.’s largest wholesale rose growers, distributing flowers to garden centers, nurseries, and mail order outlets.

This lawsuit arises because the Defendants are allegedly producing, advertising, selling, and distributing unauthorized roses using the Poulsen’s INGRID BERGMAN mark. Further bibliographical information on the Defendants’ website about their “counterfeit” roses (see screenshot) might suggest to consumers that they are in fact authentic Poulsen roses.

Surely this situation can’t be as cut and dried as the Complaint (below) would imply. A large wholesale grower like the Defendants would certainly understand the implications of selling unauthorized rose varieties and know they couldn’t escape detection. We’ll have to stay tuned for their Answer and another possible side of the story.

Poulsen Roser A/S vs. Gardens Alive, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 4:21-cv-00113-SEB-DML
File Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2021
Plaintiff: Poulsen Roser A/S
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Gardens Alive, Inc., Early Morning LLC d/b/a Weeks Roses
Cause: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competion, Federal False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Conversion, Theft
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Equestrian Arena Equipment Manufacturer Sues Competitor for Breach of Contract, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

13 Tuesday Apr 2021

Posted by in Business Law, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Patent, Southern District of Indiana, Trade Secret, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Here’s an interesting lawsuit, which seems like it wants to be a patent lawsuit but instead is masquerading as a breach of contract or trade secret lawsuit.

In September 2016, the parties allegedly into a “Product Lines Purchase Agreement,” by which the Plaintiff purchased “all specifications, shop drawings, blueprints, records and intellectual property rights” relating to the Kiser DragMaster and Kiser Edge, equipment used for grooming and maintaining equestrian arenas.

Despite selling the intellectual property for those products to Plaintiff as a part of the deal, the Defendants are now accused of selling knockoff products, although under different product names. It seems that what Plaintiff really wants to do is prevent the sale of competing products, but they don’t have any patents to truly protect their product designs. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawyers had to get creative and try to bring breach of contract, trademark, and trade secret claims.

Apparently, representatives of the Defendants have referred to the Defendants’ products as a “redesign” of Plaintiff’s DragMaster. Even if true, the Defendants could claim a nominative fair use defense, as such references seem to actually be referring to old DragMaster products. The law around comparative advertising is pretty well-settled in favor of consumer knowledge, absent evidence of false endorsement. Competitors comparing a new product to an older competing product via name is typically allowed.

By way of example, the Complaint (below) contains the following diagram comparing the Defendants’ “Kiser 1000” to the Plaintiff’s “ABI DragMaster”:

Similarly, the “Kiser 200” is compared to the “ABI Edge”:

These are the types of comparison drawings you’d typically see in a patent lawsuit. All of the features being compared are utilitarian product features. The product names (i.e. trademarks) aren’t compared because they aren’t similar at all…Kiser 1000 vs. ABI DragMaster.

Proving a breach of contract or misappropriation of trade secrets will necessarily depend on proving that the Defendants’ products are actually infringing on the intellectual property owned by Plaintiff. Without any prior patent protection, that could be difficult to do in this context.

Stay tuned to see how the Defendants respond, perhaps with a Motion to Dismiss for some of the claims.

ABI Attachments, Inc. v. Kiser Arena Specialists, Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:21-cv-00890-SEB-DLP
File Date: Monday, April 12, 2021
Plaintiff: ABI Attachments, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: James M. Lewis, Michael J. Hays of Tuesley Hall Konopa LLP
Defendant: Kiser Arena Specialists, Inc., Robert D. Kiser, James Kiser
Cause: Breach of Contract, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Lanham Act Violations, False Designation, False Advertising, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Misappropriation, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Doris L. Pryor

Complaint:

Plan B Games files Answer in Great Western Trail Litigation

01 Tuesday Oct 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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

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