Tag Archives: Susan L. Collins

False Advertising Lawsuit filed in Indiana over Paint Roller Cleaners

21 Tuesday Feb 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Paint roller cleaners are the subject of the latest Indiana false advertising and trademark lawsuit. More specifically, the lawsuit involves the alleged behavior of defendants that held out a plaintiff’s product as their own while actually selling competing product.

The plaintiff is Roller Ready, LLC of Fort Wayne, Indiana, owner of trademark and patent rights in a ROLLER READY product that cleans paint rollers.

In 2021, Roller Ready agreed to let an individual promote their product at the 2021 National Hardware Show. However, the product was apparently promoted under the brand of another company, Monkey Rung. The product won an award and all resulting recognitions went to Monkey Rung rather than Roller Ready.

Online links about the Roller Ready product point to Monkey Rung’s website with a competing product. Monkey Rung controls, and seemingly won’t relinquish, an Amazon listing for the Roller Ready product. Monkey Rung even listed the Roller Ready product on its own website’s Product Portfolio (see Complaint below).

The defendants are accused of intentionally misleading the public and degrading Roller Ready’s goodwill. Defendants act as if they own the Roller Ready product, so maybe they think they do. There are often two sides to a story, so stay tuned for what will likely be an interesting Answer. The defendants are not from Indiana, so first there could be some jurisdictional challenges.

Roller Ready, LLC v. LA Systems, LLC d/b/a Monkey Rung et al.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00068-HAB-SLC
File Date: February 14, 2023
Plaintiff: Roller Ready, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Benjamin D. Ice of Barrett McNagny LLP
Defendant: LA Systems, LLC d/b/a Monkey Rung, Paul Kiley
Cause: False Advertising, False Marking, Indiana Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Federal Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Ligonier Perfumery sues Amazon over Persistent Counterfeiting

21 Friday Jan 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Update 1/28/22: The case has been transferred to the Fort Wayne division and assigned a new case number.

The Plaintiffs in this trademark lawsuit are a “seventy year old grandmother” and her corporation, Annie Oakley Enterprises, Inc, a Ligonier, Indiana-based company which manufactures and sells health and beauty products like perfumes, essential oils, and lotions (“Annie Oakley”).

Along with 50 John Does selling counterfeit products on the Amazon online marketplace, Annie Oakley is suing Amazon for trademark infringement, false designation, and unfair competition. Amazon is apparently the first and only U.S. company on the U.S. Trade Representative’s “Notorious Market List,” a list of the worst online markets based on counterfeit product sales, copyright piracy, and trademark infringement.

The Complaint (below) details a long history of Annie Oakley attempting to deal with counterfeit products sold on Amazon, with little or no recourse from Amazon. The inferior counterfeit products have resulted in numerous consumer complaints from customers not aware they were buying counterfeits.

This David v. Goliath story will be interesting to follow. Can a small-town Indiana grandmother force the world’s most valuable public company to seriously address recurring intellectual property violations? Or will Amazon simply see a lawsuit like this as a “cost of doing business” and continue to allow counterfeits in their marketplace? Stay tuned for updates.

Gabet et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 1:22-cv-00035-HAB-SLC
File Date: January 20, 2022
Plaintiff: Renee Gabet, Annie Oakley Enterprises, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul B. Overhauser of Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc., John Does 1-50
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

GETGO vs GET 2 GO for Convenience Stores…Are You Confused?

15 Thursday Jul 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Giant Eagle is the owner of GETGO® convenience stores, with 269 locations, including four (4) stores in Fort Wayne, Indiana that were opened in 2018. Giant Eagle owns several U.S. trademark registrations for GETGO, claiming a date of first use of March 2003 for “Convenience store services, including fuel.”

The Defendants are the owners of three (3) retail convenience stores named GET 2 GO in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Defendants own two U.S. trademark registrations for the GET 2 GO trademark, claiming a date of first use of June 2011. The Plaintiff has contemporaneously filed a Petition for Cancellation (see below) against the Defendants’ registrations.

The Plaintiffs sent communications to Defendants via counsel in February 2020 and April 2021. Per the Complaint (below), “Defendants, through counsel, indicated that they were 􏰇􏰑􏰌􏰙􏰞􏰐􏰔”simply not interested” in a business resolution or in discontinuing the use of the Infringing Marks.”

The Complaint doesn’t mention any instances of actual confusion.

Given the decade-long use of their own trademarks, coexisting peacefully with apparently no instances of consumer confusion, I’m not surprised that the Defendants have opted to stand their ground and not change their name. I’ll be interested to see the affirmative defenses and possibly counterclaims in the Defendants’ Answer. Stay tuned for updates on both the lawsuit and the cancellation proceeding.

Phoenix Intangibles Holding Company et al vs. Virk Brothers, LLC et al

Case Number: 1:21-cv-00263-HAB-SLC
File Date: Friday, July 9, 2021
Plaintiff: Phoenix Intangibles Holding Company, Giant Eagle, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Anthony M. Eleftheri of Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLC
Defendant: Virk Brothers, LLC, Charanjit Singh
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Petition for Cancellation:

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

28 Thursday Jun 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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:

Super 8 sues Past Franchisee for Violation of Franchise Agreement, Unauthorized Transfer of Hotel

27 Tuesday Dec 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Defendants in this lawsuit are alleged to have transferred possession of their “Super 8”-franchised hotel (located in Auburn, Indiana) in violation of the terms of their Franchise Agreement.

The new owner, also named as a defendant, has continued to use Plaintiff’s trademarks despite termination of the Franchise Agreement in July 2014.

As is customary for franchise violations, a lawsuit often must be filed to protect not only the Plaintiff and its trademarks, but also the rights of the rest of its valid franchisees. Allowing unauthorized franchises to exist without repercussions can undermine the rights of valid paying franchise holders.

screen-shot-2016-12-27-at-8-11-24-am

Super 8 Worldwide Inc. v. Auburn Lodging Associates LLP et al

Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-00435-PPS-SLC
File Date: Thursday, December 22, 2016
Plaintiff: Super 8 Worldwide Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard M. Blaiklock, Charles R. Whybrew of Lewis Wagner, LLP
Defendant: Auburn Lodging Associates, LLP, Kokila Patel, Dilip Patel, Chicago Capital Holdings, LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement (Service Mark Infringement), False Designation of Origin, Counterfeiting, Indiana State Trademark Infringement, Indiana State Unfair Competition, Accounting, Liquidated Damages, Actual Damages, Recurring Fees, Unjust Enrichment, Guarantors’ Liability, Self-Help
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint: