Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

March 9, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Dispute over “Final Four” and “March Madness” Heads to Federal Court

Indianapolis, Indiana – National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.

NCAA’s trademarks, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office (“USPTO”), pertain to the following uses of FINAL FOUR and MARCH MADNESS:

MARK	GOODS/SERVICES	REG NO. & DATE
FINAL FOUR	Association services, namely, conducting annual basketball tournaments at the college level	1,488,836; May 17, 1988
FINAL FOUR	Promoting the goods and services of others by allowing sponsors to affiliate their goods and services with collegiate championship tournaments	2,377,720; Aug. 15, 2000
FINAL FOUR	Printed matter, namely, guides in the field of sports; Luggage, namely, portfolios, backpacks, duffle bags, rolling luggage, garment bags, briefcases, athletic bags and tote bags; and Entertainment services, Namely, providing information in the field of college sports via the Internet	2,964,266; June 28, 2006
MARCH MADNESS	Entertainment services, namely, presentation of athletic and entertainment personalities in a panel forum	1,571,340; Dec. 12, 1989
MARCH MADNESS	Entertainment in the nature of basketball tournaments between college teams	2,485,443; Sept. 4, 2001
MARCH MADNESS	Telecommunications services; namely the transmission of voice, data, images, audio, video and information via local and long distance telephone, satellite and global computer networks; leasing telecommunications equipment, components, systems and supplies; electronic mail services; telephone voice messaging services; providing multiple-user access to global computer networks to transmit, receive and otherwise access and use information of general interest to consumers; web casting of athletic games, tournaments, exhibitions, and events via the Internet	3,025,527; Dec. 13, 2005

Defendants in this Indiana trademark lawsuit are Kizzang LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada and Robert Alexander, the founder and owner of the business. They are in the business of providing nationwide Internet-based promotions that award prizes for predicting the results of sporting events. Plaintiff states that they have branded their NCAA-related services using the mark FINAL 3.

Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants had planned to adopt APRIL MADNESS for the same services as FINAL 3, but that they delayed doing so upon learning that NCAA objected to their use of FINAL 3. Kizzang has applied for federal trademark registrations for both marks with the USPTO.

Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiff contend that Defendants adopted both names because of their similarity to the marks used by NCAA and that Defendants did so with the intention of exploiting the goodwill associated with FINAL FOUR and MARCH MADNESS. In this lawsuit, filed in federal court, the following claims are made:

Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Trademark Dilution Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Common Law Unfair Competition

Plaintiff asks for various remedies from the court, including a judgment of willful and intentional violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 and Indiana common law; injunctive relief including restraining Defendants from further use of FINAL 3 and APRIL MADNESS as well as an order that the USPTO deny registration for the marks; damages, including treble damages; and attorneys’ fees.

March 7, 2017

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Eleven Indiana BitTorrent Users Accused of Infringing Copyright of Motion Picture

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – ME2 Productions Inc. of Carson City, Nevada, filed a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement of the action thriller Mechanic: Resurrection, which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under U.S. Copyright Registration No. PA-1-998-057. The movie, which is the sequel to the 2011 action film Resurrection, stars Jason Statham, Jessica Alba and Tommy Lee Jones.

Eleven unnamed Defendants, listed as Doe Defendants 1-11, are accused of infringing the copyright of the film by distributing a “screener copy” illegally via BitTorrent, a file-sharing protocol. Plaintiff states that the 11 Defendants committed copyright infringement “in a collective and interdependent manner with other Defendants via the Internet for the unlawful purpose of reproducing, exchanging, and distributing copyrighted material.”

This litigation was commenced in the Northern District of Indiana by a copyright litigator for ME2 Productions. Plaintiff contends that the Doe Defendants are Indiana residents, stating that it determined through the use of geolocation technology that each had an Indiana Internet Protocol address.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief along with damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

March 7, 2017

Patent Office to Present Seminar at Indianapolis Central Library on March 23

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The United States Patent and Trademark Office will be hosting a free program for up and coming independent inventors titled “Gender Gap in Patents”. Following the free program you can attend an educational training session in order to learn about Patent and Trademark basics. USPTO staff will be on site to answer your questions.

The program will be held on Thursday, March 23, 2017 at the Indianapolis Public Library – Central Library located at 40 East Saint Clair Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

The itinerary for the day will be as follows:

March 6, 2017

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: Joe Hand Promotions Sues Alleging Unlawful Interception of Championship Fight

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Feasterville, Pennsylvania filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana.

One business entity was sued in this Indiana litigation, Gum Dinger Slingers, LLC d/b/a Foxhole Pub at Norwood Golf Course of Warren, Indiana. Also listed as Defendants were the following Indiana residents: Lee Cutting, Stephanie Cutting, Kevin Killen, Amanda Killen and Jason Kennedy.

Defendants are accused of unlawfully intercepting and broadcasting an “Ultimate Fighting Championship®” program that was broadcast on March 14, 2015. The program, Ultimate Fighting Championship® 185: Pettis v. Dos Anjos, was broadcast exclusively on pay-per-view.

Joe Hand states that it held the exclusive commercial distribution rights to the broadcast of this program and that the business known as Foxhole Pub at Norwood Golf Course displayed the program in a commercial establishment without having obtained the proper license. In addition to suing the limited-liability company that operates the Foxhole Pub, an Indiana intellectual property lawyer for Joe Hand has sued five individuals, stating that each was an officer, director, shareholder, owner, member and/or principal of the entity owning and operating the Foxhole Pub; that each individual had a right and ability to supervise the activities of the pub; and that each had an obvious and direct financial interest in the activities of the pub.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ conduct violated 47 U.S.C. § 605 or, in the alternative, violated 47 U.S.C. § 553. It asks the court for statutory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

March 3, 2017

Patent Office Issues 134 Patents To Indiana Citizens in February 2017

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 134 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2017, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys.

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

	Patent No.	Title
1	D780,015	Ring with internal stones
2	9,584,895	Teardrop variable wall earbud
3	9,583,967	Ruggedized pressure transducer with integrated wireless antenna and rechargeable battery system
4	9,583,028	Flashlight
5	9,581,635	System and method for high voltage cable detection in hybrid vehicles

March 2, 2017

154 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in February 2017

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign trademark searches, trademark applications and assists with enforcing trademarks via infringement litigation and licensing.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 154 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2017 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View
5136340	CORNERSTONE INFORMATION SYSTEMS	TSDR
5151327	SAVE YOUR SELFIE	TSDR
5153033	CAMPAIGN CLUB	TSDR
5153016	COMPETITIVE GIVING	TSDR
5151151	ART’S SKILLET	TSDR

March 1, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Choice Hotels Alleges Former Franchisee is Infringing Econo Lodge Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Lafayette, Indiana – Choice Hotels International, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement under federal and Indiana law.

Choice Hotels is in the business of franchising hotels. It offers hotel and motel services under the following brands: CAMBRIA HOTELS & SUITES®, COMFORT INN®, COMFORT SUITES®, QUALITY®, SLEEP IN®, CLARION®, MAINSTAY SUITES®, SUBURBAN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL®, ECONO LODGE®, and RODEWAY INN®.

At issue in this Indiana trademark litigation is the Econo Lodge family of trademarks. These trademarks include U.S. Trademark Nos.:

February 27, 2017

Copyright Law: What Does Copyright Protect?

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. The U.S. Copyright Office has more information in Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “What Works Are Protected.”

Can I copyright my website?
The original authorship appearing on a website may be protected by copyright. This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by copyright. Procedures for registering the contents of a website may be found in Circular 66, Copyright Registration for Online Works.

Can I copyright my domain name?
Copyright law does not protect domain names. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a nonprofit organization that has assumed the responsibility for domain name system management, administers the assigning of domain names through accredited registers.

How do I protect my recipe?
A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See FL 122, Recipes.

Can I copyright the name of my band?
No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact an intellectual property attorney or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for further information or see Circular 34 “Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases.”

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo?
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact an intellectual property attorney or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for further information or see Circular 34. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

February 24, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Trial Court Grants Stay in Axiron Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The matter of Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. has been stayed pending a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This Indiana lawsuit was initiated by Lilly, an Indianapolis pharmaceutical company, in conjunction with other Plaintiffs. Patent attorneys for Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting patent infringement after Defendants filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Axiron® before various patents related to the drug expired. Among Plaintiffs’ contentions were claims of patent infringement of seven patents pertaining to Axiron.

In this motion, patent lawyers for Plaintiffs have asked the court to stay its proceedings pending a ruling in a similar case, Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Perrigo Company, et al. The Perrigo case was filed in the Southern District of Indiana in 2013. After a trial, the court issued findings including that one claim in one of the Axiron patents was invalid, while two claims pertaining to another Axiron patent were valid. That ruling was appealed to the Federal Circuit; that appeal remains pending.

February 23, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Sues TWi Pharmaceuticals for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A patent lawyer for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland and Acrux DDS, Pty Ltd. of West Melbourne, Australia filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Two Defendants are listed, TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Paramus, New Jersey and TWi Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan. In a 28-count complaint, Defendants are accused of infringing seven patents by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of a generic version of the pharmaceutical product Axiron® before the expiration of the patents under which the drug is protected. The patents at issue in this litigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,435,944; 8,993,520; 9,180,194; 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,807,861 and 9,289,586.

The counts against Defendants include “direct patent infringement,” “inducement to infringe” and “contributory infringement” as well as counts requesting declaratory judgment. Lilly et al. are seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, costs and attorney fees.