Tag Archives: Tim A. Baker

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Masterfile Corporation v. Kemp Title Agency

15 Sunday Aug 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Masterfile Corporation v. Kemp Title Agency

Masterfile strikes again.

Masterfile is a stock photography company which acquires and licenses images for commercial use. Defendant allegedly displayed Masterfile’s images on their website without compensating Masterfile. Defendant was given an opportunity to enter into a retroactive licensing agreement but refused.

Update 1/6/11 – The parties have reached a settlement and filed a Stipulation of Dismissal (see below). The terms of the settlement are not public but each side has paid its own legal fees.

Related Case: Masterfile Corporation v. Mark Stein

Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-00997-JMS-TAB
File Date: Monday, August 09, 2010
Plaintiff: Masterfile Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Aaron M. Staser of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Defendant: Kemp Title Agency, LLC
Cause: Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Stipulation of Dismissal:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Brian Andr’e Warren v. Xlibris Corporation

23 Friday Jul 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Brian Andr’e Warren v. Xlibris Corporation

A prisoner sought to proceed pro se in a copyright action but couldn’t pay his filing fees. The prisoner attempted to proceed in forma pauperis, but was denied by the Court.  Apparently, the plaintiff had brought over three bad lawsuits in the past and thus lost his entitlement to proceed in forma pauperis. This action was filed on July 6 and closed on July 16 without prejudice.

“In forma pauperis” refers to a motion filed by a low-income person in order to proceed in court without having to pay court costs, usually filing fees. It doesn’t usually cover other costs, such as those involved in discovery (depositions, witness fees, court reporters, etc.) and service of process.

Here’s the language of the Court’s Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis:

The plaintiff’s complaint in this action is accompanied by his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff has acquired three or more “strikes” through having litigation to which he was a party in a federal court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted or as frivolous. Therefore, he is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, unless the exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” applies. Those circumstances are not presented by this complaint based on copyright infringement.

The circumstances of this case trigger the rule of Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 1999), which states:

An effort to bamboozle the court by seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis after a federal judge has held that §1915(g) applies to a particular litigant will lead to immediate termination of the suit.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice.

For a full copy of the Complaint or Order, please leave a comment.

Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-00885-WTL -TAB
File Date: Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Plaintiff: Brian Andr’e Warren
Plaintiff Counsel: Brian Andr’e Warren – Pro Se
Defendant: Xlibris Corporation
Cause: Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Interactive Intelligence v. Advanced Information Systems

12 Monday Jul 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Interactive Intelligence v. Advanced Information Systems

Defendant was a reseller of Plaintiff’s telephony software. After an alleged breach of contract, Defendant continued to use Plaintiff’s copyrighted software and trademarks. Please leave a comment if you’d like a full copy of the complaint.

Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-00842-TWP -TAB
File Date: Thursday, July 01, 2010
Plaintiff: Interactive Intelligence, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Constance R. Lindman, Tami L. Napier of Overhauser & Lindman LLC
Defendant: Advanced Information Systems, Inc.
Cause: Breach of Contract, Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Copyright Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Allison Transmission v. Harlan Global Manufacturing

01 Thursday Jul 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The complaint alleges that Harlan Global is putting old Allison transmissions into new tractors and selling the tractors around the world as having new components.  Harlan’s advertisements allegedly do not inform the purchasing public that the tractors manufactured and sold by Harlan include previously used components obtained from a source other than the original manufacturer (Allison) or an authorized remanufacturer. Allison has received complaints from consumers.

Allison Transmission, Inc. v. Harlan Global Manufacturing LLC

Court Case Number: 1:10-cv-00789-SEB-TAB
File Date: Monday, June 21, 2010
Plaintiff: Allison Transmission, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mary J. Frisby of Barnes & Thornburg
Defendant: Harlan Global Manufacturing LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement Under The Lanham Act, False Designation of Origin/False Advertising Under the Lanham Act, Counterfeiting Under the Lanham Act, Dilution, Unfair Competition Under Indiana Common Law, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation v. Landmark Media Group

22 Monday Jun 2009

Posted by in Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-00767-WTL-TAB
File Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Plaintiff: Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, HDN Development Corporation
Plaintiff Counsel: Abram B. Gregory, Jonathan G. Polak of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: Landmark Media Group, Inc., John D. Keller
Cause: (1) Federal Trademark Infringement; (2) Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Passing Off and False Advertising; (3) Counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. 1116(d); and (4) Common Law Fraud.
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

KrispyKreme

The Defendants failed to appear and the Court entered a Default Judgment.

Leave a comment with your email if you’d like a copy of the full Complaint or Judgment.