Tag Archives: Unfair Competition

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:

Ligonier Perfumery sues Amazon over Persistent Counterfeiting

21 Friday Jan 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Update 1/28/22: The case has been transferred to the Fort Wayne division and assigned a new case number.

The Plaintiffs in this trademark lawsuit are a “seventy year old grandmother” and her corporation, Annie Oakley Enterprises, Inc, a Ligonier, Indiana-based company which manufactures and sells health and beauty products like perfumes, essential oils, and lotions (“Annie Oakley”).

Along with 50 John Does selling counterfeit products on the Amazon online marketplace, Annie Oakley is suing Amazon for trademark infringement, false designation, and unfair competition. Amazon is apparently the first and only U.S. company on the U.S. Trade Representative’s “Notorious Market List,” a list of the worst online markets based on counterfeit product sales, copyright piracy, and trademark infringement.

The Complaint (below) details a long history of Annie Oakley attempting to deal with counterfeit products sold on Amazon, with little or no recourse from Amazon. The inferior counterfeit products have resulted in numerous consumer complaints from customers not aware they were buying counterfeits.

This David v. Goliath story will be interesting to follow. Can a small-town Indiana grandmother force the world’s most valuable public company to seriously address recurring intellectual property violations? Or will Amazon simply see a lawsuit like this as a “cost of doing business” and continue to allow counterfeits in their marketplace? Stay tuned for updates.

Gabet et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 1:22-cv-00035-HAB-SLC
File Date: January 20, 2022
Plaintiff: Renee Gabet, Annie Oakley Enterprises, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Paul B. Overhauser of Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc., John Does 1-50
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Holly A. Brady
Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Complaint:

“Bubbles” vs. “Scoops and Sweet Bubbles” for Ice Cream Parlors…are you confused?

26 Thursday Aug 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Since 2004, the Plaintiff has operated an ice cream parlor called “Bubbles” in Michigan City, Indiana. The Plaintiff does not have a registered trademark. Their red, white and blue logo includes several bubbles and an ice cream cone.

In July 16, the Defendant opened a new ice cream parlor called “Scoops & Sweet Bubbles” just 1.5 miles from the Plaintiff’s store. Defendant’s logo is cyan, green and gray, with some abstract shapes and some textual elements describing their products, including bubble tea. It seems clear that “Sweet Bubbles” from Defendant’s name refers to the bubble tea on their latin-flavored menu. The Plaintiff’s menu does not include bubble tea.

The Complaint (below) asserts that Plaintiff first proposed an amicable resolution but was ignored and then overtly rejected. They now seek court intervention.

What do you think? Is Scoops & Sweet Bubbles confusingly similar to Bubbles, particularly considering they are located only 1.5 miles apart? The closest nearby business with “bubbles” in the name is Tiny Bubbles of Chesterton, a car wash 11 miles down the highway.

Stay tuned for updates.

Bubbles Ice Cream Parlor & Pie Shoppe, Inc. v. Scoops & Sweet Bubbles, LLC

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00634
File Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Plaintiff: Bubbles Ice Cream Parlor & Pie Shoppe, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gary E. Hood, Brian Anderson, John Snow of Polsinelli PC
Defendant: Scoops & Sweet Bubbles, LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

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:

Mailbox Drone Manufacturer Invites Copyright Infringement Lawsuit by Stealing Product Photographs from Competitor

17 Thursday Jun 2021

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Plaintiff in this lawsuit is an Illinois-based manufacturer of smart mailboxes and customized mail delivery drones.

Unfortunately, this copyright infringement lawsuit doesn’t involve the very interesting mailbox and drone technology but instead focuses on two photographs of Plaintiff’s product. The Defendants, a competing drone mailbox company from Indianapolis, allegedly copied the product photographs, make slight modifications to remove Plaintiff’s identifiers, and included the altered photographs in its own presentation materials, including at a major industry trade show.

Reviewing the images included in the Complaint (below), it certainly seems like these are fairly blatant, and slightly ridiculous, instances of copyright infringement. The Complaint also alleges several other claims based on the Defendants’ alleged attempts to “unfairly advance and promote the commercial identity, status and reputation of the Defendant Companies, to solicit the sale of their products and services to customers and potential customers, and to solicit investors, potential investors and partners, in competition with Plaintiff.”

I’m looking forward to the Defendants’ Answer and their possible explanation for the use of the altered photographs. Stay tuned for updates.

Valqari LLC v. Dronedek Corporation et al.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-01754-JMS-MJD
File Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Plaintiff: Valqari LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Pollack-Milgate, E. Sahara Williams of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Louis J. Alex of Cook Alex Ltd.
Defendant: Dronedek Corporation, Dronedek LLC, Daniel O’Toole
Cause: Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Representations, False Designations of Origin, Reverse Passing Off, Unfair Competition, State Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint: