Tag Archives: Tim A. Baker

Carmel Teenager sued over Counterfeit Eric Emanuel Apparel

31 Thursday Oct 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The plaintiff in this Indiana trademark lawsuit is a New York-based luxury sportswear designer, Eric Emanuel. The defendant is a Carmel, Indiana teenager allegedly selling counterfeit Eric Emanuel apparel imported from China. Per the Complaint (below), the counterfeit products are allegedly bought by the defendant from China suppliers, stored at his mother’s Carmel home, and promoted and sold online.

The fashion designer seeks the teenager’s profits, actual and compensatory damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. It seems this teenager picked the wrong designer to counterfeit and what seemed like a “get rich quick” scheme could quickly turn to “get poor quick.”

Stay tuned for updates.

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01895-JPH-TAB
File Date: October 25, 2024
Plaintiff: EE Holding Group LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Anne K. Ricchiuto of Peele Law Group
Defendant: PDGROWTH LLC, Patrick D. Garton
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal False Endorsement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Hot Girl Walk v. Hot Walk Indy…are you confused?

17 Wednesday Jul 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

An Indianapolis-based inclusive walking group is being sued for trademark infringement by the national walking group which had inspired its original name. The plaintiff operates a national women’s walking group called Hot Girl Walk, a name inspired by Megan Thee Stallion’s song “Hot Girl Summer.” The group promotes walking events for women across the country and has some significant sponsorships. In 2019, the defendant started a walking group called Hot Girl Walk Indy, which was later shortened to Hot Walk Indy. If this was the extent of the conflict, I suspect a federal lawsuit might never have been filed. However, while the trademark infringement claims in the Complaint (below) are the focus of this IP blog, the plaintiff was likely more concerned about an alleged series of defamatory statements, doxing, and aggressive bullying, all detailed in the Complaint. Standing alone, Hot Walk Indy might not cause a conflict with Hot Girl Walk, but when it’s combined with a group campaign of actively seeking to undermine the Hot Girl Walk brand, it puts a plaintiff in a position where they have to file a lawsuit.

It’s difficult to see how keeping the name of a relatively new local walking group would be worth the cost of defending a federal lawsuit, but perhaps the defense funds can be crowdfunded among the group. Considering the other activities detailed in the Complaint, the defendant may already be in too deep despite what name they use and the other group members may stay away for fear of being named as additional defendants.

Stay tuned for updates.

Hot Girl Walk LLC v. Springer d/b/a Hot Walk Indy

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01187-JMS-TAB
File Date: July 15, 2024
Plaintiff: Hot Girl Walk LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Joseph R. Delehanty of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: Casey Springer d/b/a Hot Walk Indy
Cause: Tortious Interference with Business Relationship, Defamation, Business Disparagement, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Federal False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane E. Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Twisted Tater Food Truck sues Twisted Taters for Trademark Infringement

06 Monday May 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Both parties in the latest Indiana trademark lawsuit operate food trucks in Indiana. The plaintiff has been operating as Twisted Tater since 2012, selling spiral cut potatoes placed on a skewer and deep fried.

The defendant apparently began operating as Twisted Taters in July 2021, selling “gourmet ribbon fryz.”

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter in October 2023 and, unable to find a suitable resolution, now seek the intervention of the Southern District of Indiana.

The plaintiff received an Indiana state registration for their logo in 2016. They also received an Indiana trademark registration for the word mark TWISTED TATER on April 1, 2024. The plaintiff filed a federal trademark application for TWISTED TATER on March 29, 2024. However, a Google search reveals that there are several “Twisted Taters” in operation across the country, so the plaintiff may have some additional enforcement work and/or opposition defenses before they receive a federal registration. There are also some prior registrations for TWISTER FRIES and TWISTER that may lead to a Section 2(d) “likelihood of confusion” refusal.

Stay tuned for updates.

Peugh et al. v. Nadler et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00764-JRS-TAB
File Date: May 3, 2024
Plaintiff: Charlotta Pugh, BCC Concessions, LLC d/b/a Twisted Tater
Plaintiff Counsel: Katie M. Charleston of Katie Charleston Law, PC
Defendant: Adam J. Nadler, Jr., Twisted Taters Food Truck and More, Does 1-10
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Indiana State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unfair Use of Trade Name, Unfair Competition, Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Cybersquatting
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James R. Sweeney II
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Two Chinese Corporations fight in Indiana Federal Court over Diamond Wall Panels

10 Wednesday Jan 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Happy New Year! Here’s a bit of an oddball case to kick off Indiana intellectual property litigation in 2024. Both parties in this copyright lawsuit are Chinese corporations, but the defendant apparently does business in Indiana. The defendant is alleged to have infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in a “Diamond Tile,” a square or rectangular wall panel having a three-dimensional design formed by various diamond-like elements. The defendant’s sales of the allegedly infringing wall panels took place on Amazon.com.

The Complaint is relatively short, just 4 pages, and has no specifically defined cause, although it seems to be for copyright infringement. We’ll be interested to learn more about the defendant’s relationship with Indiana as the lawsuit progresses. Presumably either the infringing wall panels are manufactured in Indiana or are distributed by Amazon from Indiana.

Here is the plaintiff’s wall panel design:

And here is the defendant’s design:

What do you think? Are the designs substantially similar?

Stay tuned for updates.

Guangzhou Shima Decoration Materials Co., Ltd v. Shenzhen Ruimingxiang Technology Co., Ltd.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00041-RLY-TAB
File Date: January 8, 2024
Plaintiff: Guangzhou Shima Decoration Materials Co., Ltd
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael A. Swift, Harold C. Moore, Travis W. Baxter of Maginot, Moore & Beck, LLP
Defendant: Shenzhen Ruimingxiang Technology Co., Ltd.
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Knockoff Chinese Jewelry prompts Indiana Copyright Lawsuit

12 Wednesday Apr 2023

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

An Indiana copyright lawsuit has been filed by Taylor Shaye Designs, a jewelry designer and retailer/wholesaler from Louisiana.

The defendant, located in Whitestown, Indiana, is the apparent U.S. sales and distribution arm of the global Shein conglomerate, a Chinese online fast fashion retailer that is known for selling inexpensive apparel, jewelry, and other accessories.

The defendant is accused of copying the plaintiff’s registered “Let’s Go Girls” jewelry design.

The standard for determining whether the reproduction right in a copyrighted work has been infringed is “substantial similarity.” Blog readers can judge for themselves whether the above designs have substantial similarity. Hopefully the lawsuit will see an argument that the designs are not substantially similar but I anticipate either a jurisdictional challenge or a discrete settlement as the most likely outcomes. Either way, stay tuned to this blog for updates.

Taylor Shaye Designs LLC v. Shein Distribution Corp.

Court Case Number: 1:23-cv-00624-SEB-TAB
File Date: April 11, 2023
Plaintiff: Taylor Shaye Designs LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry of Reichel Story Dean LLP
Defendant: Shein Distribution Corp.
Cause: Direct Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint: