Tag Archives: Unfair Competition

Lawsuit filed in Indiana over “Genesis” trademark for Window Blinds

30 Thursday Jun 2022

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Plaintiff in this trademark lawsuit is a West Lafayette, Indiana-based provider of high-quality window treatments and blinds. The Plaintiff owns a trademark registration for GENESIS in connection with “window blinds, window shades, and venetian blinds,” with a claimed date of first use of April 1, 1994.

The Defendants are Coulisse, a Dutch company (operating out of Miami, Florida) that has been selling window coverings since 1992. Coulisse has begun promoting a line of “Genesis” smart window coverings, consisting of “elegant screens with a focus on functionality.”

Stay tuned for the Defendants’ response, but the easiest solution seems to be a quick rename of their Genesis concept line, which is just one of several available lines. A few promotional documents will require some text change but that’s fairly easily accomplished.

Lafayette Venetian Blind, Inc. v. Coulisse Distribution LLC et al.

Case Number: 4:22-cv-00047
File Date: June 29, 2022
Plaintiff: Lafayette Venetian Blind, Inc. v. Coulisse Distribution LLC
Plaintiff Counsel: William P. Kealey, David M. Stupich of Stuart & Branigin LLP
Defendant: Coulisse Distribution LLC, Coulisse Holding USA Inc.
Cause: Declaratory Relief, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Philip P. Simon
Referred To: Andrew P. Rodovich

Complaint:

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: