• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: William T. Lawrence

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – ChaCha Search v. HTC America

22 Tuesday Feb 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Unfair Competition, Dilution, Litigation Update, Mark J. Dinsmore, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, William T. Lawrence

ChaCha Search, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. et al

ChaCha is a Delaware corporation based in Carmel, Indiana. It provides a mobile-based search engine that utilizes the assistance of human guides to provide relevant search results. The CHACHA trademark was registered in 2007 for “Search engine services, namely, providing search engines for obtaining data on a global computer network; Search engine services, namely, providing specific information as requested by customers via the Internet in the nature of customized searching, in Class 42.”

Defendant HTC seeks to introduce a new smartphone called the “HTC ChaCha,” prompting Plaintiff to institute this action.

What do you think? Do you read the services listed in ChaCha’s registration above to include “smartphones”? Is ChaCha overreaching here? Would ChaCha’s money have been better spent on additional trademark registrations if they wanted to also protect ChaCha for “mobile phones,” which are in Class 9?

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00262-WTL-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Plaintiff: ChaCha Search, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Bradley M. Stohry and Michael A. Wukmer of Ice Miller, LLP
Defendant: HTC America, Inc.
HTC Corporation
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relieve
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Pitonyak Machinery v. Brandt Industries

18 Friday Feb 2011

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition, Debra McVicker Lynch, False Designation of Origin, Litigation Update, Mark J. Dinsmore, Tanya Walton Pratt, William T. Lawrence

Pitonyak Machinery Corp. v. Brandt Industries, Ltd. et al

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-00233-TWP-DML
File Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011
Plaintiff: Pitonyak Machinery Corp.
Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel T. Earle, James E. Shlesinger of Shlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey LLP; John D. Pettie, Thomas S. Stone of Dover Dixon Horne PLLC
Defendant: Brandt Industries, Ltd., Brandt Agricultural Products, Ltd.
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

View this document on Scribd

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

23 Friday Jul 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Tim A. Baker, William T. Lawrence

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

View this document on Scribd

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

22 Monday Jun 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Common Law Fraud, Counterfeiting, False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, Federal Trademark Infringement, Tim A. Baker, Unfair Competition, William T. Lawrence

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.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Heckler & Koch v. Tippman Sports, Tigerstripe Paintball

07 Thursday May 2009

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

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

Tim A. Baker, William T. Lawrence

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-00560-WTL-TAB
File Date: Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Plaintiff: Heckler & Koch, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Brian J. McGinnis, Darlene R. Seymour of Continental Enterprises
Defendant: Tippman Sports LLC, Tigerstripe Paintball LLC
Cause: Trademark Infringement
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

heckler1Leave a comment with your email if you’d like a copy of the full Complaint.

Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (327)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (603)
  • Indianapolis (51)
  • Intellectual Property (662)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (595)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (215)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (369)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (363)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 81 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...