Tag Archives: Trademark Dilution

Kingston, Indiana Grocery Store sued for Trademark Infringement

09 Friday Aug 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

In addition to using an identical name, the defendant in the latest Indiana trademark lawsuit is accused of submitting a fraudulent letter to the Indiana Secretary of State claiming permission to use the name. The Kingston, Indiana grocery store is allegedly operating as “My Market” without the authorization of the plaintiff, who has prior rights in the name.

The plaintiff and defendants likely have some personal background that isn’t discussed in the Complaint (below). If so, the Answer may shed more light on why the defendant thought it had permission to use the name “My Market.”

Stay tuned for updates.

My Market LLC v. Batth Markets Inc. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-01335-MPB-MJD
File Date: August 6, 2024
Plaintiff: My Market LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: C. Christopher Dubes, Amanda C. Delekta of Carson LLP
Defendant: Batth Markets Inc., Chhaterpal Singh
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Trademark Dilution, Federal Unfair Competition, Conversion
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Fort Wayne Printing Company sues FortWaynePrintShop.com for Trademark Infringement, Dilution

01 Monday Apr 2024

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Fort Wayne Printing Company has performed printing and related services in Northeast Indiana since 1902. They have a pending federal trademark application for FORT WAYNE that successfully passed its 30-day publication window on March 28, 2024. One day later, Fort Wayne Printing Company filed a federal trademark lawsuit in Indiana against a company using the domain FortWaynePrintShop.com.

The defendant, Allen & Goel Marketing Company, has been using the domain name fortwayneprintshop.com to advertise printing and related services. When attempting to purchase services at the domain, it redirects to their primary website, http://www.printshopnation.com.

It’s possible that the marketing company directly targeted Fort Wayne Printing Company in purchasing the FortWaynePrintShop.com domain. However, they may have just purchased a bunch of geographically descriptive domains (i.e. “[cityname]printshop.com) and didn’t check whether any of those names corresponded to a pre-existing company. In the latter scenario, you might expect them to simply give up the domain without incurring a federal lawsuit. By not relinquishing the domain, it could be an indication that this particular geographic domain is especially profitable for them. Further, the FortWaynePrintShop.com domain was first created on 11/11/2011 and the Internet Archive first captured the website in May 2013, so the defendant might have a valid acquiescence or laches defense.

Apparently unable to resolve this situation with normal cease-and-desist communications, probably due to the 10+ years use of the domain name, the plaintiff now seeks court intervention in the Northern District of Indiana. The fact that the lawsuit was filed one day after the trademark application’s publication window closed may indicate that the defendant was never contacted, in order to not tip them off to the application status. Either way, stay tuned for updates.

Optical Tactics, LLC d/b/a Fort Wayne Printing Company v. Allen & Goel Marketing Company

Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00134-HAB-SLC
File Date: March 29, 2024
Plaintiff: Optical Tactics, LLC d/b/a Fort Wayne Printing Company
Plaintiff Counsel:
Defendant: Allen & Goes Marketing Company
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal False Designation of Origin, Federal Passing Off, Federal Unfair Competition, Trademark Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Injunctive Relief
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

Buttermilk Café vs. Buttermilk Pancake House…are you confused?

27 Thursday Apr 2023

Posted by in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The plaintiff in Indiana’s latest trademark lawsuit owns three restaurants called Buttermilk Café in the Chicago metropolitan area, along with a federal trademark registration for BUTTERMILK CAFE (Reg. No. 5,888,702) claiming “restaurant services, in International Class 43,” with a date of first use in 2011. Notably, it is a concurrent use registration with another restaurant called Buttermilk Kitchen, based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Since at least 2019, the defendant has operated a restaurant called Buttermilk Pancake House in Munster, Indiana.

The Complaint (below) doesn’t mention any actual instances of consumer confusion. You might think if Buttermilk Café and Buttermilk Kitchen can co-exist, then surely there’s room in the marketplace for a Buttermilk Pancake House, particularly in a crowded field like restaurants, with over 1,000,000 operating restaurant locations in the U.S. However, Munster, Indiana is about 30 miles from Chicago, so proximity may be the plaintiff’s greatest concern in this situation. That’s close enough that both parties’ restaurants would inevitably show up in a map search for either restaurant. It’s close enough that consumers might think the “Pancake House” is an offshoot of the nearby “Café.” The Munster restaurant utilizes a different color and font for “Buttermilk” and “Pancake House” on their exterior signage, a marketing practice often used with a “family mark” and a new descriptive product/service name. This could arguably lead consumers to believing that there is a connection between the parties. However, other than use of a similar name, there’s no other evidence in the Complaint (e.g. similar logo, menu, interior design, color scheme, etc.) that the Munster restaurant is intentionally misrepresenting itself to be connected with the plaintiff’s restaurant.

Stay tuned for updates.

Sak Group, Inc. v. Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc.

Court Case Number: 2:23-cv-00142-PPS-JPK
File Date: April 25, 2023
Plaintiff: Sak Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Michael E. Tolbert, Shelice R. Tolbert, Candace C. Williams of Tolbert & Tolbert, LLC
Defendant: Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Passing Off, Federal Unfair Competition, Trademark Dilution, Violation of the Indiana Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Joshua P. Kolar

Complaint:

WORLD OF LEGGINGS vs. LEGGINGS WORLD…are you confused?

17 Tuesday Apr 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit, California-based Muscle Flex, Inc., operates a hosiery website, worldofleggings.com, which boasts “5.5 million visitors, 27 million views, and millions of dollars in sales across the United States.”

The Defendants operate several hosiery stores called “Leggings World” inside Simon Property Group (“Simon”) properties across the Midwest and Northeast. Simon is included as a defendant in the lawsuit.

When Muscle Flex complained of the infringement to Simon, Simon responded by removing instances of “Leggings World” from its website and digital directories inside its malls, and sending cease-and-desist letters to tenants operating under the “Leggings World” name in its properties.

However, this didn’t satisfy Muscle Flex, which also wants to receive some money for damages, leading to some slight lawyer shade:

Simon has seemingly thrown in the towel on Leggings World, removing it from all Simon online directories (really, go try to find a store online), but we’ll see whether Leggings World decides to challenge Muscle Flex and continue operating the physical stores. Stay tuned for updates.

Muscle Flex, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P. et al.

Court Case Number: 1:18-cv-1140
File Date: Friday, April 13, 2018
Plaintiff: Muscle Flex, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher A. Brown of Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP, Connor Lynch of Lynch LLP (pro hac vice)
Defendants: Simon Property Group, L.P., Simon Property Group, Inc., Matt Murat Dagli, New Purple LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Trademark Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Tim A. Baker

Complaint:

Indiana power sport vehicle company sues Canadian competitor over infringing parts

17 Tuesday Apr 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit, ASW, LLC, is a Columbia City, Indiana-based company that designs and sells power sport vehicles and related parts. ASW owns the registered trademarks AMERICAN SPORTWORKS and LANDMASTER.

The Defendant, a Canadian corporation, is alleged to be selling competing products using identical marks from an infringing website, americansportworksparts.com. It’s not clear from the Complaint (below) whether the infringing products are repackaged/refurbished items (which can void a warranty) or just plain ol’ counterfeit goods, although it seems closer to the latter. 

ASW, LLC v. Bisson et al.

Court Case Number: 1:18-cv-00086-TLS-PRC
File Date: Monday, April 9, 2018
Plaintiff: ASW, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Linda A. Polley, Charles J. Heiny of Haller & Colvin, P.C.
Defendants: Bisson, 1837967 Alberta Ltd.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Trademark Dilution, Common Law Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Common Law Passing Off
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Theresa L. Springmann
Referred To: Paul R. Cherry

Complaint: