Tag Archives: State Trademark Infringement

YouTube Celebrity Omi in a Hellcat sued in Indiana for Trademark Infringement

04 Monday Apr 2022

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Social Media, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Since 2016, the Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit, NuStar Enterprises of Elkhart, Indiana, has used the registered trademark RELOADED in connection with “clothing and apparel, namely, shirts, jackets, pants, hats, belts, scarves, gloves, socks, underwear, swimwear, and wristbands.” They also have pending applications for sandals, slippers, sneakers, athletic shoes, and tactical vests, as well as hookah pipes and related smoking accessories.

In July 2019, NuStar learned that Bill Omar Carrasquillo, a rapper and YouTube celebrity known as “Omi in a Hellcat,” intended to start an apparel company under the brand name RELOADED. NuStar reached out to Mr. Carrasquillo’s agent about its prior trademark rights and the parties attempted to negotiate a licensing agreement. Those negotiations fell apart in late 2019 “due to Mr. Carrasquillo’s legal and financial troubles.”

Despite knowledge of the Plaintiff’s trademark, the Defendants went forward with plans to launch an apparel company called Reloaded Merch in mid-2021. The Complaint (below) references instances of actual consumer confusion, including a notice of violation received by Plaintiff from Amazon.com because their products were not made by the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s products were even taken off of the Amazon marketplace in favor of the Defendants’ products. Due to the Defendants’ popularity, this truly seems to be a situation where the Plaintiff has lost the ability to control its brand identity, lost control over its goodwill and reputation, and has lost the ability to move into new products and markets.

Stay tuned for updates.

NuStar Enterprises LLC v. Reloaded Merch LLC, Bill Omar Carrasquillo

Case Number: 2:22-cv-00080
File Date: April 1, 2022
Plaintiff: NuStar Enterprises LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Andrew M. Hicks of Warrick & Boyn, LLP
Defendant: Reloaded Merch LLC, Bill Omar Carrasquillo
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement, State Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: John E. Martin

Complaint:

RV Manufacturer Sues Competitor For Use of Confusingly Similar Trademarks (Della Terra vs. Terra)

01 Wednesday Sep 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Both parties in this trademark infringement lawsuit are recreational vehicle (“RV”) manufacturers from Indiana. Did you know that Elkhart, Indiana is the RV Capital of the World?

The Plaintiff is Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana. They began using the unregistered DELTA TERRA trademark in connection with recreational vehicles in March 2018. Their “mountain” logo was adopted shortly after in April 2018.

The Defendant is inTech Trailers, another RV manufacturer from the Elkhart region. They allegedly introduced a new line of RVs called “Terra” in November 2020, along with its own mountain design.

The Plaintiff first notified Defendant of its allegedly infringing activities in December 2020 but there has been no cessation of activity. The Complaint (below) asserts that some of Defendant’s leadership has past ties to Plaintiff, so there may be more to this story than meets the eye. However, even judged at face value, the marks do seem similar. Any distinctions in the mountain designs would certainly be blurred and possibly indistinguishable as these RVs roll by you on the highway. Even if understood to be different product lines, a consumer might reasonably think that both “Delta Terra” and “Terra” RVs emanate from the same manufacturer.

The Defendant has been aware of the Plaintiff’s objections since December 2020, so they should be ready to defend their trademarks and will be expected to file an Answer soon. Stay tuned for updates.

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc.

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00645-DRL-MGG
File Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2021
Plaintiff: Forest River, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Philip R. Bautista, JoZeff W. Gebolys, Tracy N. Betz, Stephanie A. Kortokrax of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: inTech Trailers, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr

Complaint:

“Bubbles” vs. “Scoops and Sweet Bubbles” for Ice Cream Parlors…are you confused?

26 Thursday Aug 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Since 2004, the Plaintiff has operated an ice cream parlor called “Bubbles” in Michigan City, Indiana. The Plaintiff does not have a registered trademark. Their red, white and blue logo includes several bubbles and an ice cream cone.

In July 16, the Defendant opened a new ice cream parlor called “Scoops & Sweet Bubbles” just 1.5 miles from the Plaintiff’s store. Defendant’s logo is cyan, green and gray, with some abstract shapes and some textual elements describing their products, including bubble tea. It seems clear that “Sweet Bubbles” from Defendant’s name refers to the bubble tea on their latin-flavored menu. The Plaintiff’s menu does not include bubble tea.

The Complaint (below) asserts that Plaintiff first proposed an amicable resolution but was ignored and then overtly rejected. They now seek court intervention.

What do you think? Is Scoops & Sweet Bubbles confusingly similar to Bubbles, particularly considering they are located only 1.5 miles apart? The closest nearby business with “bubbles” in the name is Tiny Bubbles of Chesterton, a car wash 11 miles down the highway.

Stay tuned for updates.

Bubbles Ice Cream Parlor & Pie Shoppe, Inc. v. Scoops & Sweet Bubbles, LLC

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00634
File Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Plaintiff: Bubbles Ice Cream Parlor & Pie Shoppe, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gary E. Hood, Brian Anderson, John Snow of Polsinelli PC
Defendant: Scoops & Sweet Bubbles, LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint:

Dispute over Great Western Trail publishing rights leads to trademark lawsuit

18 Thursday Apr 2019

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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.

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
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:

Super 8 sues Past Franchisee for Violation of Franchise Agreement

09 Tuesday Apr 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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: