Tag Archives: Tanya Walton Pratt

Microsoft sues in Indiana over Phony Tech Support Schemes

28 Monday Feb 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Nearly seven out of ten Americans have encountered a technical support scam in the previous twelve months. Approximately ten percent of those respondents lost money from such scams. That’s not cool.

Microsoft is attempting to crack down on phony Microsoft support scams, in this particular instance focusing on a New Jersey individual operating a shell Indiana company called “Think Global.” The Complaint (below) details the scam and an interaction between Microsoft’s agent (presumably an attorney or technical investigator) and the alleged scammer(s).

The Complaint names an individual, a Mount Laurel, New Jersey resident (the sole member of the Indiana company), so perhaps there will be some justice for all the scammed individuals.

Stay tuned for updates.

Microsoft Corporation v. Solution Hat, LLC d/b/a Think Global et al.

Case Number: 1:22-cv-00396-TWP-TAB
File Date: February 25, 2022
Plaintiff: Microsoft Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Jeff M. Barron of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Bonnie MacNaughton, Meagan Himes of David Wright Tremaine LLP
Defendant: Solution Hat, LLC d/b/a/ Think Global et al,
Cause: Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, Telemarketing Sales Rule, Trademark Infringement, False Advertising, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, Federal Trademark Dilution, Cybersquatting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Indianapolis Mexican Restaurant sued for Piracy over 2018 Alvarez v. Fielding Boxing Match

16 Thursday Dec 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Here’s more support for a copyright small claims court. Indianapolis-based Mexican restaurant La Jalisco is being sued for copyright infringement and piracy after allegedly showing (without authorization, obviously) a Canelo Alvarez vs. Rocky Fielding boxing match in their west-side restaurant on December 15, 2018.

For non-boxing fans, Alvarez is currently ESPN.com’s #1 “Pound-for-Pound” boxer (for comparison, the legendary “Gypsy King” Tyson Fury ranks #5). So, while 3 years ago, it was a big Saturday night fight.

Consider what a restaurant has to pay to properly show a fight. A few hundred dollars at most, probably closer to one hundred, and definitely less than the $600 filing fee for a federal lawsuit. Certainly less than the $150,000 statutory damages sought by the plaintiff. The Complaint (below) doesn’t reference any settlement communications between the parties, but you have to think that the defendants were given an opportunity to settle by paying a reasonable license fee at one point.

On the other hand, if La Jalisco didn’t show the fight, they didn’t show the fight. There are usually two sides to every story, so stay tuned for the Defendants’ response.

Innovative Sports Management Inc. v. La Jalisco LLP

Case Number: 1:21-cv-03040-TWP-MG
File Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2021
Plaintiff: Innovative Sports Management Inc., d/b/a Integrated Sports Media
Plaintiff Counsel: Ryan R. Janis of Jekielek & Janis LLP
Defendant: La Jalisco LLP d/b/a Taqueria Jalisco a/k/a Jalisco Restaurant Bar, Joan Brito, Victoria A. Morales
Cause: Satellite and Cable Piracy, Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Mario Garcia

Complaint:

Painter sues T-Shirt Printing Website for Unauthorized Use of Presidential Painting

27 Monday Sep 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This copyright lawsuit involves a painter attempting to stop an online merchandise platform from using his artwork on customizable products. The Defendant t-shirt website, like thousands of other sites, sells blank apparel that can be customized with a user-uploaded image or text.

Per the Complaint (below), the John Doe defendants (1-11) have, via separate registered accounts, been uploading a digital copy of one of Plaintiff’s paintings since 2018 and using the online platform to create unauthorized products which they presumably then sell elsewhere. Plaintiff’s counsel first contacted the Defendant website in April 2020 about the unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s artwork, seemingly with no acceptable resolution or cessation.

In lawsuits such as this with numerous John Doe defendants, the first and most difficult hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to discover the identity of the John Does. The similarity in the John Doe’s account names on the t-shirt platform seem to indicate that it’s just one source (an individual or small group) that is repeatedly ordering new product. I wouldn’t expect any response to be filed by the John Doe Defendants, who will likely disappear altogether, and probably a long road of discovery for the Plaintiff perhaps eventually leading to a default judgment against the determined “guilty” party.

The vicarious infringement and contributory infringement claims against the online t-shirt website will be interesting to follow. Presumably, having been put on notice of the unauthorized use in April 2020, the t-shirt website might be expected to take more action to prevent future infringements of the same image. But how closely do they (or should they be expected to) patrol user-submitted images for infringement? It seems like the t-shirt printing and shipping process would be almost completely automated following the user submission, with no copyright verification step in between.

Stay tuned for updates.

Thomas v. ooShirts, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02519-TWP-MJD
File Date: Friday, September 24, 2021
Plaintiff: Andrew “Andy” Thomas
Plaintiff Counsel: Sean J. Quinn of SouthBank Legal: LaDue | Curran | Kuehn, Oliver Maguire of Evans & Dixon, LLC
Defendant: ooShirts, Inc., John Does 1-11
Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Infringement, Contributory Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

RE/MAX sues Realtor Franchisee for Competing Against His Own Franchises

25 Wednesday Aug 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Apparently all the intellectual property litigators in Indiana took nice long summer vacations, as this is the first new IP lawsuit filed in over two months (since July 22, 2021). After the long wait, the lawsuit we get is mostly about the breakdown of a 10-year franchise relationship.

The Plaintiff is RE/MAX, a global franchisor of real estate brokerage services.

The Defendant is a franchisee accused of numerous violations of the franchise agreement, including actively competing against his own franchises, sending sales associates to a competitor, and enabling competing agents to operate out of RE/MAX locations.

These franchise lawsuits always have two sides, so it’s typically a good idea to read both the Complaint and the Defendant’s Answer for a better picture of how a 10-year franchise relationship breaks down to the point of a lawsuit. Stay tuned for updates.

RE/MAX, LLC et al v. Dulin et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02321-TWP-TAB
File Date: Tuesday, August 24, 2021
Plaintiff: RE/MAX, LLC, RE/MAX Integrated Regions, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Lucy Dollens of Quarles & Brady LLP, Kathryn A. Reilly, Thomas A. Olsen, Chuan (CiCi) Cheng of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP
Defendant: James E. Dulin II, The Hamilton Group, Inc.
Cause: Breach of Contract, Federal Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Declaratory Relief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Author Sued for Copyright Infringement, RICO Violation over Unauthorized Tell-all Book about Deceased Metaphysician

21 Monday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The parties to this copyright lawsuit have a long personal history.

The Plaintiff, Fitzgerald, was the executor of the estate of Frithjof Schuon (“Schuon”), a Swiss metaphysician and author, who died in Bloomington, Indiana in May 1998.

The Defendant, Murray, was a close friend of Schuon and his wife until 1992. From 1992-1995, Murray allegedly made aggressive communications, including threatening letters, to Schuon. Murray repeatedly violated a Protective Order, leading to her incarceration. Murray then filed four lawsuits against the Schuons, two of which were dismissed and two which were settled via a Settlement Agreement that included a confidentiality provision.

Photo by Michael Fitzgerald, CC BY 2.5, No changes made.

After Schuon died in 1998, his wife inherited his right of publicity and copyrights. Those rights were subsequently assigned to Plaintiff World Wisdom, Inc. (“World Wisdom”) in 2003. Mrs. Schuon’s rights under the Settlement Agreement were assigned to Fitzgerald and World Wisdom in 2021. World Wisdom also was assigned rights in Mrs. Schuon’s own right of publicity and copyrights.

In April 2018, Murray published a website that contained many criticisms of Schuon. The website allegedly infringes some of Mrs. Schuon’s copyrighted works and violates the confidentiality provision of the earlier Settlement Agreement. Further, in 2021, Murray published a book, Third Wife of the Muslim Shaykh Frithjof Schuon, that allegedly infringes numerous copyrighted works of Mrs. Schuon. Murray’s publisher, Defendant Beacon Books and Media, discontinued print publication of the book in March 2021 but electronic versions remain available. The Defendants have apparently intimidated that further print versions of the book are forthcoming.

In addition to copyright and breach of contract claims, the Complaint (below) also includes a claim for a RICO violation based on alleged racketeering activity by the Defendants.

Given the long history between the parties and the seemingly contrary position of the Defendants, the Answer should be an interesting read. Stay tuned for updates.

Fitzgerald et al. v. Murray et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB
File Date: Friday, June 18, 2021
Plaintiff: Michael Fitzgerald, World Wisdom, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, Jason M. Rauch, Elizabeth A. Charles of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Maude Murray, Beacon Books and Media, LTD
Cause: Civil RICO, Copyright Infringement, Right of Publicity, Breach of Contract, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint: