The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 163 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Registration Number | Wordmark |
| 7325304 | ITC INDIANA TICKET COMPANY DESIGN QUALITY SECURITY |
| 7319505 | INDIANA TICKET COMPANY |
| 7336322 | GRAY BROTHERS CAFETERIA |
| 7319504 | INDIANA TICKET CO. |
| 7333601 | NEURO SUPPORT PLUS |
| 7335961 | ADVOCATE. EDUCATE. PROTECT. |
Following a recent trial, a jury in the U.S. District Court in South Bend, Indiana delivered a resounding win for recreational vehicle giant Forest River Inc. The court awarded Forest River a $2 million judgment in its trademark infringement case against local competitor inTech Trailers Inc., a ruling that could have significant implications for the industry.
The jury’s March 2024 verdict found inTech Trailers guilty of willfully infringing on Forest River’s trademarks, specifically those associated with its popular Della Terra brand and distinctive mountain design. This infringement stemmed from inTech’s introduction of a “Terra” brand travel trailer, which the jury found to bear similarities to Forest River’s established trademarks.
Forest River promptly issued a cease and desist demand to inTech upon discovering the infringement. Despite these warnings, inTech persisted, leading to the initiation of legal proceedings.
Lafayette, Indiana – Plaintiff Aaron Rigsby, a professional videographer, has brought suit against Defendant John W. Darnell, Inc. d/b/a All Seasons Roofing for alleged copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C §101 et seq.
According to the complaint, Aaron Rigsby recorded and produced a video capturing the aftermath of a tornado in Sullivan, Indiana. Rigsby then secured copyright registrations for his work, establishing his exclusive rights to its use and distribution.
Rigsby now alleges that All Seasons Roofing, operating under the account “@All Seasons Roofing and Restoration” on Facebook, unlawfully copied and displayed his video on their platform without obtaining the necessary permissions or licenses. This unauthorized use, as Rigsby contends, constitutes a violation of his exclusive rights as a copyright holder under 17 U.S.C. §106.
In Cyprus, Texas, Valcrum, LLC (“Valcrum”), a company specializing in trailer and axle market products, is engaged in a legal dispute with Dexter Axle Company, LLC (“Dexter”) from Indiana over trademark and trade dress infringement regarding a hubcap design.
According to court documents, Valcrum has developed a reputation for innovative hubcaps designed for 8,000-16,000-pound trailer axles. These hubcaps are identified by their distinct features, including a “signature red hex bezel with a hexagonal outer perimeter and an inner diameter.” Valcrum claims to have begun establishing trademark and trade dress rights for this design as early as late 2018.
The dispute arises from Valcrum’s allegation that Dexter, a manufacturer and distributor of axle and trailer accessories, has copied Valcrum’s hubcap design, including the distinctive red hex bezel, to market its own product called the “Fortress” hubcap. Additionally, Valcrum contends that Dexter breached a Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) by allegedly using confidential information, such as Valcrum’s customer list, to its advantage.
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (“Nutramax”) have recently begun legal proceedings against CNB Retailers, LLC, Brett Hart, and Christina Miller (“Defendants”) alleging unauthorized resale of Nutramax products. The suit involves allegations concerning trademark infringement, unfair competition, and interference with contractual agreements.
Nutramax Labs and Nutramax Vet, entities headquartered in South Carolina, are known for their development and distribution of health supplements tailored for companion animals. Court documents state that the trademarks associated with Nutramax, such as NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE, are widely recognized within the industry. Nutramax products are sold through authorized retailers which may have online or brick-and-mortar locations.
The crux of Nutramax’s grievance lies in Defendants’ purported unauthorized sales of Nutramax products, notably on Amazon.com, under the seller account name “UniversalExports.” In addition to the accused products bearing the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE trademarks, Nutramax asserts that the products being distributed by Defendants differ materially from those authorized by Nutramax, thus failing to meet the requisite quality standards. These requirements include proper storage conditions to maintain product quality and providing customer support and knowledge about Nutramax products.
The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 312 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2024:
| Patent Number | Patent Title |
| US 11886208 B2 | Electronic user interface for electronic mixing of water for residential faucets |
| US 11884752 B2 | Inhibited non-pregelatinized granular starches |
| US 11883335 B2 | Medical products storage device including access control |
| US 11884467 B2 | Degradable materials and packaging made from same |
| US 11883110 B2 | Sensor-based shoulder system and method |
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 204 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Registration Number | Wordmark |
| 7309930 | AIRFEET |
| 7298640 | PERQ CONVERT |
| 7317144 | ENVIRON |
| 7302107 | PAINT & DECORATING RETAILER |
| 7308828 | |
| 7312041 | KIRKWOOD CANDLE BAR |
Indianapolis, Indiana – Defendant Circle City Broadcasting, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV, is being sued by Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski over alleged copyright infringement. Sadowski is a photojournalist from New Jersey, who has been published in numerous popular newspapers and magazines. While he holds the licenses to his photographs, court documents explain that Sadowski allows entities to purchase a one-time-use license for themselves.
According to the complaint, in 2019, Sadowski created and copyrighted a photograph titled “062219garbagetruck4CS,” depicting the bustling streets of New York City. In 2021, Circle City Broadcasting purportedly published Sadowski’s work on their website, without obtaining the necessary licensing. It is alleged that not only did they display the image without consent, but they also cropped out Sadowski’s copyright management information, potentially infringing upon his rights.
Despite Sadowski’s supposed attempts to resolve the matter amicably, Circle City Broadcasting purportedly failed to address the issue satisfactorily. Consequently, Sadowski pursued legal action to address the alleged willful infringement.
In a recent CAFC ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658, owned by Mantissa Corporation, the court addressed the issue of claim definiteness in the context of an infringement dispute with First
Financial Corporation and First Financial Bank, N.A. The case focused on interpreting terms like “transaction partner” and “OFF” within the patent claims. The district court, relying on expert testimony, found “transaction partner” indefinite, a decision challenged by Mantissa. However, the CAFC majority emphasized intrinsic evidence from the patent itself, highlighting the term’s absence in the original specification and rejecting Mantissa’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would understand it as a seller. The court declined to address the construction of “OFF” due to jurisdictional constraints. Judge Schall dissented, arguing for a broader interpretation of “transaction partner” based on the specification’s references to multiple parties involved in transactions.
Ultimately, the CAFC’s ruling highlights the importance of precision and clarity in patent claims. It emphasizes the intrinsic evidence as a primary source for claim interpretation and underscores the significance of ensuring that claim terms are adequately defined within the patent specification itself. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that claim definiteness plays in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“Baskin-Robbins”) v. Blue Moo Ice Cream Inc. (“Blue Moo”) is a breach of contract and trademark infringement suit involving Plaintiff Baskin-Robbins/BR IP Holder, a well-known franchisor in the ice cream industry, and Defendants Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc., and Robert Holocher.
According to the complaint, Baskin-Robbins entered into franchise agreements with Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. for the operation of Baskin-Robbins franchises in the greater Indianapolis area. However, Baskin-Robbins claims the termination of the agreements ensued due to Blu Moo’s repeated failure to fulfill financial obligations to Baskin-Robbins, triggering a series of legal actions.
The crux of the case revolves around Blu Moo’s alleged unauthorized use of Baskin-Robbins’ intellectual property, including trademarks and trade dress, after the termination of franchise agreements. Baskin-Robbins claims to have given clear instructions to cease operations and de-identify the restaurants, but Blu Moo purportedly continued to operate, sparking Baskin-Robbins’ claim of irreparable harm to their brand reputation and goodwill.
