• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: State Trademark Infringement

Dispute over Great Western Trail publishing rights leads to trademark lawsuit

18 Thursday Apr 2019

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Conspiracy, False Designation of Origin, Federal Unfair Competition, Gaming, State Trademark Infringement

This is an interesting dispute involving board game publishing rights and exclusive trademark licensing.

The Complaint (below) references a contract by which the plaintiff, Stronghold Games, would exclusively publish a board game called “Great Western Trail” from August 3, 2016 to December 31, 2018. At that time, the game was owned by a German company called eggertspiele. The Complaint alleges that one of the obligations eggertspiele agreed to in the contract was it “will not during the term grant to any other person, firm or company any rights that would derogate from the grant made” in its contract with Stronghold Games.

Stronghold first released Great Western Trail in the U.S. in November 2016. It was very popular and quickly sold out. However, while seeking permission for a second print run of the game in June 2017, Stronghold learned that all assets of eggertspiele had been purchased by Plan B Games, the defendant.

Plan B Games asserted that it had no contract with Stronghold and it did not grant reprint rights to Stronghold. Subsequently, in January 2018, Plan B Games released its own version of Great Western Trail, seemingly identical but removing Stronghold’s logo from the packaging.

Screen Shot 2019-04-17 at 11.03.19 AM.png

I think this paragraph from the Complaint nicely sums up why Stronghold is unhappy with the current state of affairs: “Plan B was well aware of the pent-up demand for the Stronghold Version of this game in 2017, and the introduction of the nearly identical Plan B Version in early 2018 to satisfy the pent-up demand for the Stronghold Version improperly traded on Stronghold’s goodwill and has led to consumer confusion.”

Unfortunately, while the Complaint references the initial contract between Stronghold and eggertspiele granting publication rights, it didn’t include a copy of the contract for review. Although the contract apparently included language about minimum duration and exclusivity, it’s unclear whether the contract granted any property interest in the Great Western Trail trademark to Stronghold.

As general information, license agreements can give licensees standing to sue for infringement, provided that they grant an exclusive license and a property interest in the trademark. A trademark licensee’s proper use of a mark benefits the trademark owner, not the licensee. This allows trademark owners to rely on use by controlled licensees to prove continuing use of a trademark. Section 5 of the Lanham Act explicitly recognizes the acquisition of trademark rights by a licensor through first use of the mark by a controlled licensee.

However, in this situation, Stronghold appears to assert its own claim to property rights in the GREAT WESTERN TRAIL trademark distinct from the licensor, based on its own exclusive marketing efforts in the United States.

I look forward to reading the Answer, which hopefully will include the original contract. Stay tuned for updates.

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

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-1492
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
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

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Super 8 sues Past Franchisee for Violation of Franchise Agreement

09 Tuesday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Franchise Agreement, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, Federal Trademark Infringement, State Trademark Infringement

Well, at least it’s not another photography copyright case…

But it’s not really much of a trademark case either. The defendants are alleged to have continued using Plaintiff’s trademarks after the expiration of a previous Franchise Agreement.

What does make this case interesting is that it has a long history. The prior owner of the same Auburn, Indiana facility was involved in a similar 2016 lawsuit with Super 8.

How about this assertion in the Complaint? Do you agree? Indisputably?

16. The Super 8® Marks are indisputably among the most famous in the United States.

I can think of many brands (at least 100) more famous than Super 8 motels. But, you go, Super 8.

Super 8 found a resolution last time (new franchisee?) so maybe they’ll do the same this time. Stay tuned for updates.

Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. v. Harvee Properties et al

Court Case Number: 1:19-cv-00145
File Date: Thursday, April 4, 2019
Plaintiff: Super 8 Worldwide, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew M. Pendexter, James M. Hinshaw of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
Defendant: Harvee Properties, LLC, Paresh Patel
Cause
: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Federal Trademark Counterfeiting, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint: 

View this document on Scribd

North American Van Lines sues North America Moving & Storage for trademark infringement, cybersquatting

28 Thursday Jun 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Common Law Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement, Susan L. Collins, Theresa L. Springmann

The Plaintiff, North American Van Lines, has been providing transportation services since 1969. The Defendant, North America Moving & Storage, is accused of using a similar company name and domain names to infringe Plaintiff’s trademarks.

The Complaint (below) alleges instances of actual confusion.

Stay tuned for updates.

North American Van Lines, Inc. v. North America Moving & Storage, Inc.

Court Case Number: 1-18-cv-00196-TLS-SLC
File Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Plaintiff: North American Van Lines, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mary A. Smigielski of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Defendant: North America Moving & Storage, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, Indiana Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Sign Company sues Former Employee for Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

18 Monday Apr 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices, Illinois Trademark Infringement, John E. Martin, Jr., Robert L. Miller, State Trademark Infringement, State Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship, Tortious Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage

Defendant, a former employee of Plaintiff, is alleged to use have used Plaintiff’s company resources to benefit his own competing business. The Complaint (below) describes in detail (truly…the Complaint goes up to Exhibit JJJ) how Defendant apparently falsely claimed credit for Plaintiff’s past achievements and client relationships.

Stay tuned for updates.

Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 7.44.39 AM

Landmark Signs Inc v. I C U Outdoor Advertising LLC et al

Court Case Number: 2:16-cv-00128-RLM-JEM
File Date: Friday, April 15, 2016
Plaintiff: Landmark Signs Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Cori A. Mathis of Hilbrich Cunningham Dobosz Vinovich & Sandoval, LLC
Defendant: I C U Advertising LLC, Lawrence M. Yurko
Cause: Federal Unfair Competition, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, State Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship, Tortious Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage, Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices, Federal Trademark Infringement, State Trademark Infringement, Illinois Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Chanel v. Chanel’s Salon

05 Friday Sep 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Litigation Update, Paul R. Cherry, State Trademark Infringement, State Unfair Competition, Theresa L. Springmann

From the Complaint: “Chanel recognizes the fact that “Chanel” is the first name of Defendant Chanel Jones. But this suit is not about Ms. Jones’ ability to use her name to identify herself. Ms. Jones is using CHANEL as a trade name for a beauty business and commercially exploiting the name CHANEL. There is no absolute right to exploit one’s given name commercially if such use is inconsistent with Chanel’s rights. In this case, Ms. Jones is not using her entire name but is instead only using that part of her name that copies Chanel’s famous CHANEL trademark. Ms. Jones’ use began long after the CHANEL mark was registered and became famous, and Ms. Jones’ use is in connection with services related to those offered by Chanel.”

Chanel, Inc. v. Chanel’s Salon LLC et al

Court Case Number: 2:14-cv-00304
File Date: Friday, August 29, 2014
Plaintiff: Chanel, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gregory A Neibarger
Defendant: Chanel’s Salon LLC, Chanel Jones
Cause: Federal Trademark Dilution, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry

Complaint:

View this document on Scribd
← Older posts

Categories

  • Artists (20)
  • Authors (18)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (25)
  • Business Law (4)
  • Copyright (249)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (4)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (460)
  • Indianapolis (41)
  • Intellectual Property (512)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (450)
  • Musicians (10)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (140)
  • Patent (41)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (53)
  • Southern District of Indiana (257)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (11)
  • Trade Secret (10)
  • Trademark (266)
  • 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