Tag Archives: Theft

Elkhart RV Manufacturer sues Former Employees for Conversion, Trade Dress Infringement

11 Tuesday Oct 2022

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trade Dress

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The plaintiff in this lawsuit is Phoenix USA RV, an RV manufacturer located in Elkhart, Indiana, the RV Capital of the World.

The defendants are a large group of former Phoenix USA employees and the competitor company they founded while still working at Phoenix USA. The defendants are accused of sabotaging the plaintiff’s operations, stealings its tangible and intellectual property, and using a stolen RV design to build a prototype for a virtually identical RV. The allegedly infringing RV is now being marketed online and at RV trade shows.

The defendants are represented by Jonathan R. Slabaugh of Sanders Pianowski LLP. Based on the history detailed in the Complaint (below), we can probably expect some fireworks once everything gets going. Employment disputes involving just one employee can get messy, but this situation involves a whole company’s worth of ex-employees plus their new competing company.

This lawsuit was removed from Elkhart Superior Court to the Northern District of Indiana. Stay tuned for updates.

Phoenix USA RV, Inc. v. Hoosier Custom Cruisers LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 3:22-cv-00855
File Date: October 7, 2022
Plaintiff: Phoenix USA RV, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul E. Harold, Stephen M. Judge of SouthBank Legal
Defendants: Hoosier Custom Cruisers LLC et al.
Cause: Conversion, Criminal Conversion, Theft, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Federal Unfair Competition, Trade Dress Dilution, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

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:

Indiana brewery alleges rights in its CORN MAZE BEER FEST stolen by own marketing agency

31 Monday Jul 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This trademark lawsuit arises out of a dispute over ownership of the term “Corn Maze Beer Fest.”

The Plaintiff, 450 North Brewing Co. of Columbus, Indiana, hosted an event under that name in 2016 in the fields surrounding their brewery.

The Defendant is an Indiana company specializing in marketing for craft beer events.

The parties had worked together (with only an unsigned agreement and oral contract) on the 2016 event but a dispute has arisen over ownership of the event name. Despite the parties terminating their business relationship in early 2017, Defendant appears to be moving forward with its own version of a CORN MAZE BEER FEST, still being actively promoted on the website that Plaintiff believes it should own.

Stay tuned for updates.

Brix Haus Brewing Inc. d/b/a 450 North Brewing Co. v. Indiana On Tap, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:17-cv-02529-JMS-MPB
File Date: July 27, 2017
Plaintiff: Brix Haus Brewing Inc. d/b/a 450 North Brewing Co.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, Amie Peele Carter of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Defendant: Indiana On Tap, LLC
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act, Deception, Conversion, Theft, Fraud, Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Matthew P. Bookman

Complaint:

Trademark Lawsuit filed in Indiana against Titleist, Cleveland Golf Club Counterfeiter

26 Monday Dec 2016

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Defendant, a resident of Carmel, Indiana, is accused of selling counterfeit golf clubs and golf accessories. In addition to trademark claims, the Complaint includes a wide range of Indiana code violations.

screen-shot-2016-12-26-at-5-01-48-pm

Acushnet Company et al. v. Nunns et al.

Court Case Number:1:16-cv-3379-RLY-TAB
File Date: Thursday, December 15, 2016
Plaintiff: Acushnet Company, Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc., Dunlop Sports Co. LTD
Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: Giorgio V. Nunns a/k/a George Nunns a/k/a Georgie Nunns a/k/a Giorgio, Custom Golf Solutions, LLC d/b/a bogie’s nearly new golf d/b/a gnunns81 d/b/a golf customsolutions15
Cause: Trademark Counterfeiting, Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Conversion, Forgery, Counterfeiting, Theft, Criminal Mischief
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Richard N. Bell v. Diversified Vehicle Services et al

08 Tuesday Apr 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

INDY SKYLINEThe Plaintiff in this copyright lawsuit is an attorney and professional photographer living in McCordsville, Indiana. In 2000, Plaintiff took two photographs of the downtown Indianapolis skyline from a location on the Canal near the USS Indianapolis Memorial. Both of Plaintiff’s photographs were duly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and posted on the Internet in August 2000. All of the various defendants have allegedly utilized Plaintiff’s photographs on their respective websites without permission.

Website owners, you should immediately check your websites to determine whether you know the source of EVERY photograph. Unless you’re certain that you have permission to use the photographs (or qualify for some exception to copyright infringement like fair use), remove/replace the photographs at once. These photograph copyright lawsuits have been occurring for far too long to continue to plead ignorance or innocent infringement. Take your own photographs, hire a photographer or license existing photographs. But don’t get caught in a lawsuit because you take the easy way out and grab an image from Google.

Whatever you do, definitely don’t use Plaintiff’s photographs…he has a long history of litigation to enforce his copyrights:

Richard N. Bell v. Mark Arruda

Bell v. Indy Cleaning Pros

Richard N. Bell v. Greg Bayers LLC et al.

Richard N. Bell v. Jerry Gordon et al.

Richard Bell v. Cameron Taylor et al.

Richard N. Bell v. Diversified Vehicle Services et al

Court Case Number: 1:14-cv-00525
File Date: Monday, April 07, 2014
Plaintiff: Richard N. Bell
Plaintiff Counsel: Richard N. Bell – Pro Se
Defendant: Diversified Vehicle Services, Cameron Taylor, Taylor Computer Solutions, Rhonda Williams, Forensic Solutions Inc., Heath Garrett, Crestacom Inc., American Traveler Service Corp. LLC, Mike Cowper, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Easystreet Realty Indianapolis, Drohan Management, Metal Markets, Mattison Corporation, Industrial Heating Equipment Association, Junk Dawgs, Kimberly Hinds
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Unfair Competition, Theft
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue