By

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 205 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2016, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No. Title
1 D752,718 Lever
2 D752,717 Faucet
3 D752,517 Desktop receptacle
4 D752,454 Wireless transmitter
5 9,299,899 Flexible lighting device having unobtrusive conductive layers
6 9,299,242 Distributed healthcare communication system
7 9,298,881 Method, system and device for voice message recording and playback at point of care
8 9,297,822 Laboratory system for handling sample tube racks, an alignment element for sample tube racks and a rack tray receiver assembly

Continue reading

By

2016-04-06-blogphoto.png

South Bend, Indiana – Intellectual property attorneys for Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. of New York, New York and Coach Services, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida (collectively, “Coach”) filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana.

Coach contends that Defendants Zip Thru Mart, Charles Estok Sr., and Janice Estok, all of Knox, Indiana, infringed various Coach trademarks, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition to trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Coach asserts that Defendants have committed trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, as well as trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment under Indiana common law.

Coach’s allegations stem from Defendants’ purported “designing, manufacturing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale” products that bear counterfeit Coach trademarks. Defendants are further accused of having engaged in this behavior “negligently and/or knowingly and intentionally, with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Coach’s rights, or with bad faith.”

In support of its allegations of infringement and related conduct, Coach states that it sent an investigator to the Zip Thru Mart. Its investigator saw multiple items bearing Coach trademarks, which Coach contends were counterfeit. Additional goods bearing purportedly counterfeit trademarks were seized by a Homeland Security Investigations officer during a subsequent visit to the business.

The intellectual property listed in this litigation includes numerous trademarks for “Coach,” “Coach New York,” “CC,” “Poppy” and similar trademarks. Coach also claims infringement of its copyrights, listing copyright registrations, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, for its “Legacy Stripe” design (registration number VA000704542)  “Signature C” design (registration number VA0001228917),  “Op Art” design (registration number VA0001694574) and “Horse & Carriage” design (registration number VA0001714051).

In this Indiana lawsuit, filed by trademark and copyright attorneys for Coach, the intellectual property claims are listed as follows:

• Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count III: Trade Dress Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count IV: False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count V: Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
• Count VI: Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 501
• Count VII: Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count VIII: Common Law Unfair Competition

• Count IX: Unjust Enrichment

In addition to statutory damages of $2 million per counterfeit mark, per type of counterfeit good, Coach seeks equitable relief; additional damages, both statutory and punitive; costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Coach has a history of requesting statutory damages that are considerably in excess of what has eventually been awarded by the courts. For example, in Coach, Inc. v. Paula’s Store Sportwear LLC, 2014 WL 347893 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2014), Coach requested $800,000 in statutory damages – $100,000 for each of eight counterfeited marks – from a shop from which four counterfeit Coach wallets and two counterfeit Coach handbags had been seized. When awarding damages to Coach, the court noted that the retail value of the six counterfeit items was less than $1500 and awarded $5000 for each of the eight marks that had been counterfeited, multiplied by the two types of goods, for a total statutory damages award of $80,000.

Continue reading

By

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed two additional lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana. Both complaints, filed by Indiana attorneys for Design Basics, allege violations of copyright law.

Defendant in the first lawsuit is Straight Talk Construction, Inc. of Goshen, Indiana. Defendants in the second lawsuit are W R Birkey & Associates Inc., doing business as Birkey Homes and W.R. Birkey Realty; and Wayne Birkey, doing business as Birkey Homes and W.R. Birkey Realty of Granger, Indiana (collectively, “Birkey”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants in both lawsuits infringed its copyrighted architectural designs, which have been filed with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Copyrights alleged to have been infringed by Straight Talk:

Title                                    Registration Certificate Nos. 

Plan No. 8095 – Sun Valley   VA 729-290, 729-256
Plan No. 3121 – Bellamy       VA 624-158, 624-159 & 710-606

Plaintiff contends that Straight Talk committed infringement when it published, distributed, marketed, advertised and/or constructed in the marketplace Design Basics’ copyrighted architectural designs, which were offered by Straight Talk as “The Jordan,” “The 1009 Parade Home” and “Sunrise.”

Copyrights alleged to have been infringed by Birkey:

Title                                       Registration Certificate Nos. 

Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista    VA 282-203, 694-095 & 752-162
Plan No. 1330 – Trenton           VA 314-016, 694-094 & 756-041
Plan No. 1455 – Newberry         VA 344-857, 694-093 & 710-605
Plan No. 1559 – Bancroft          VA 344-870, 694-094 & 752-162
Plan No. 1752 – Lancaster        VA 371-204, 694-094 & 756-041
Plan No. 2244 – Standley          VA 434-218 & 752-162
Plan No. 2249 – Normandy        VA 434-208, 694-088 & 726-372
Plan No. 2285 – Prairie              VA 467-639, 694-094, 726-354& 1-921-718
Plan No. 2408 – Crawford          VA 485-123, 694-093, 756-041& 1-921-776
Plan No. 2414 – Stanton            VA 485-125, 694-093, 726-361& 1-926-487
Plan No. 2656 – Castelar           VA 542-694, 826-741 & 1-926-492
Plan No. 2701 – Ambrose          VA 524-308, 694-093, 710-606& 1-926-479
Plan No. 2702 – Ellison              VA 542-690 & 1-926-477

The Birkey Defendants are alleged to have infringed Plaintiff’s works by copying, publishing, distributing, advertising, marketing, selling and/or constructing in the marketplace Plaintiff’s copyrighted material. The purportedly infringing designs are marketed by Birkey under the following model names: Andrea, Appleton, Ashbury, Belmont, Bridgeport, Britney, Hallbrook, Heather Lake, Kensington, Kingsbury, Megan, Miranda, Normandy, Oakridge, Sawyer, Sherwood, Sinclair, and Zachery.

Design Basics seeks equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Design Basics has filed numerous federal complaints alleging copyright infringement. In Indiana, it has filed 10 separate lawsuits since February: Design Basics Sues Builders and Others Alleging Infringement of Copyrighted Architectural Designs, Design Basics Files Additional Indiana Lawsuit and Plan Pros Added as Plaintiff in Newest Design Basics Lawsuit. Nationwide, Design Basics, or entities that appear to be related to the company, has filed more than 60 intellectual property lawsuits since 2008 in the federal courts of Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

Continue reading

By

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 182 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.  Word Mark Click To View
4925344 DRINK INDIANA BEER GREAT BEER MADE HERE TSDR
4914831 BEEZA TSDR
4914607 NU VU FUELS TSDR
4929228 RIGHT PART, RIGHT TIME, EVERY TIME TSDR
4927652 AMERICAN EAGLE TSDR
4927623 LAREDO TSDR
4927568 MATCHA-GO! TSDR
4927517 JUNKYARD GODDESS TSDR
4927490 TELLTHEWORLD TSDR
4927355 GAME CHANGER TSDR
4927317 FARM TO FETE TSDR
4927315 FARM TO MEETING TSDR
4927264 B TSDR

Continue reading

By

2016-03-31-blogphoto.png

Washington, D.C. – Following a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Google, Inc., the 2005 class-action lawsuit The Authors Guild et al. v. Google, Inc. has headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Copyright litigators for Plaintiffs The Authors Guild et al. are asking the high court to hear the lawsuit, which alleges copyright infringement by the publication by Google of Google’s digital book library. Plaintiffs contend that Google, which seeks permission from the owners of the copyrighted works (typically libraries) but not from the authors of the works, has committed massive copyright infringement. Amicus curiae briefs have been filed with the Court by numerous parties. Among them are several notable authors including Malcolm Gladwell, Margaret Atwood, and Steven Sondheim.

Google has defended against the allegations by arguing, inter alia, that its use of the copyrighted material was permissible as a fair use.

Circuit Judge Denny Chin, sitting by designation, issued the opinion for the Southern District of New York. He agreed with Google that its use of the material was properly classified as a fair use, writing:

In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits. It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books. It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and remote or underserved populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits.

The Second Circuit affirmed.

The questions presented by Plaintiffs to the Supreme Court are:

1. Whether, in order to be “transformative” under the fair-use exception to copyright, the use of the copyrighted work must produce “new expression, meaning, or message,” as this Court stated in Campbell and as the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether the verbatim copying of works for a different, non-expressive purpose can be a transformative fair use, as the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held.
2. Whether the Second Circuit’s approach to fair use improperly makes “transformative purpose” the decisive factor, replacing the statutory four-factor test, as the Seventh Circuit has charged.
3. Whether the Second Circuit erred in concluding that a commercial business may evade liability for verbatim copying by arguing that the recipients of those copies will use them for lawful and beneficial purposes, a rationale that has been flatly rejected by the Sixth Circuit.

4. Whether a membership association of authors may assert copyright infringement claims on behalf of its members.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed a lawsuit by Indiana copyright attorney and professional photographer Richard Bell against Defendant Find Tickets, LLC of Alpharetta, Georgia for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In June 2015, Bell sued Find Tickets in the Southern District of Indiana asserting copyright infringement. He stated that the Georgia-based company had published a copyrighted photo on its website, www.findticketsfast.com, without his permission. The photo in question was one that Bell had taken of the downtown Indianapolis skyline. It had been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. VA0001785115.

On behalf of Find Tickets, a copyright lawyer asked the court to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, averring that Find Tickets “does not maintain any offices in Indiana, has no employees in Indiana, holds no assets in Indiana, pays no taxes to the state of Indiana, and has no bank or other financial institution accounts in Indiana.” It was further stated that the business was owned by two Georgia residents, neither of whom had ever set foot in Indiana.

The court turned to a constitutional analysis of the due process requirements for personal jurisdiction, as elucidated by the Seventh Circuit in Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 800-01 (7th Cir. 2014). Citing that appellate case, the district court stated:

Due process is satisfied so long as the defendant had “certain minimum contacts” with the forum state such that the “maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'” The relevant contacts are those that center on the relations among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. However, “[f]or a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.” Thus, the relation between the defendant and the forum “must arise out of contacts that the ‘defendant himself‘ creates with the forum . . . .” Moreover, although no special test exists for internet-based cases, the Court focuses on whether the defendant has purposely exploited the Indiana market beyond the availability of the website in the forum state. (Citations omitted).

The district court was unpersuaded by Bell’s arguments, opining that the Seventh Circuit precedent set forth in Advanced Tactical “established that a defendant who ‘maintains a website that is accessible to Indiana residents should not be haled into court simply because the defendant owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state, even if it is ‘interactive.'”

The court similarly held that, as with Advanced Tactical, Defendant’s sales to residents of the forum state were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction as it had not been demonstrated that such sales were related to the lawsuit.

Finding no personal jurisdiction over Defendant, the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.

Practice Tip: Overhauser Law Offices, publisher of this blog, represented Defendants Real Action Paintball, Inc. and its president in the appeal to the Seventh Circuit.

Continue reading

By

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Plaintiffs National Association of Forensic Counselors, Inc. (“NAFC”) and American Academy of Certified Forensic Counselors, Inc. d/b/a American College of Certified Forensic Counselors (“ACCFC”), both of Fort Wayne, Indiana, commenced litigation in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement.

Plaintiffs offer certifications, for example “Master Addictions Counselor,” to individuals working with criminal offenders in the fields of criminal justice, corrections, addictions and mental health. Defendants in this litigation include individuals as well as organizations offering such services. They are as follows:

NARCONON INTERNATIONAL of California; NARCONON OF GEORGIA, INC. of Georgia; FRIENDS OF NARCONON INTL. of California; PREMAZON, INC. of California; NARCONON SPRING HILL, INC., d/b/a SUNCOAST REHABILITATION CENTER of Florida; BEST DRUG REHABILITATION, INC. of Nevada; A LIFE WORTH LIVING, INC. d/b/a NARCONON COLORADO – A LIFE WORTH SAVING of Colorado; NARCONON FRESH START, INC. of California; NARCONON SOUTH TEXAS, INC. of Texas; NARCONON EASTERN UNITED STATES, INC. of Virginia; ASSOCIATION FOR BETTER LIVING AND EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL of California; RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER of California; NARCONON FREEDOM CENTER, INC. of Michigan; GOLDEN MILLENNIUM PRODUCTIONS of California; INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SPECIALISTS of California; GREATCIRCLE STUDIOS of Florida; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL of California; ROYALMARK MANAGEMENT of California; ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ of California; ROBERT “BOBBY” WIGGINS of California; JONATHAN BEAZLEY of California; JOSEPH GUERNACCINI of California; PHILIP R. KELLY II of California; THOMAS GARCIA of Florida; CLARK CARR of California; MICHAEL DAPALMA of California; DAVID MISCAVIGE of California; NICHOLAS THIEL of Michigan; DAVID S. LEE of Indiana; RICHARD “MATTHEW” HAWK of Louisiana; MARY RIESER of Georgia; ANTHONY BYLSMA of California; KENNETH POMERANCE of Florida; JAMES “JIM” WOODWORTH of Louisiana; CARL SMITH of California; JONATHAN MROETTI of California; GLEN PETCAVAGE of Colorado; DAPHNA HERNANDEZ of California; LURIA K. DION a/k/a KATHY DION of California; and NARCONON OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA d/b/a NARCONON VISTA BAY d/b/a NARCONON REDWOOD CLIFFS of California.

As part of its certification program, Plaintiffs utilize a federally registered trademark, which is included in Plaintiffs’ logo:

2016-03-29-Blogphoto2.png

NAFC and ACCFC allege that Defendants have infringed its trademark, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Federal Trademark Registration No. 3,585,933. Defendants are also accused of misusing Plaintiffs’ certifications and logos.

The following violations of law have been alleged by Plaintiffs:

• Federal Trademark Infringement
• Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Federal Infringement Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1125

• Civil Conspiracy

Plaintiffs seek various forms of redress including preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorney’s fees.

Continue reading

By

Evansville, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Plaintiff The Great American Bagel Enterprises, Inc. (“GAB”) of Westmont, Illinois filed a trademark infringement complaint in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendants United HBA Corporation and Harbhajan Singh, d/b/a The Great American Eagle, both of Evansville, Indiana.

GAB owns, operates and franchises food-products stores known as The Great American Bagel. It owns a trademark for “The Great American Bagel,” Trademark Registration No. 2,015,665, which is comprised of the phrase “The Great American Bagel” with stars and bands. The mark has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

2016-03-28-blogphoto1.png

Defendant United HBA operates a gas station and convenience store, which offers retail food products. Defendant Singh is listed as the President and sole principal of United HBA. GAB contends that United HBA is displaying a sign that had previously been used as signage for a The Great American Bagel store. GAB states that Defendants modified “Bagel” to read “Eagle” by removing the “B” and adding an “E” but that the sign is otherwise unaltered.

2016-03-28-blogphoto2.png

GAB alleges infringement of its trademark, stating that Defendants’ use of the modified sign has caused customers to confuse the food products offered by GAB with those offered by Defendants. In this federal lawsuit, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, the following claims are made:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: False Designation of Origin, False Advertising and Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act Section 43(A)
• Count III: Unfair Competition – Trade Name Infringement
• Count IV: Unfair Competition – Passing Off

• Count V: Unjust Enrichment

GAB seeks equitable relief, damages, including punitive damages; costs and attorney’s fees.

Continue reading

By

2016-03-25-BlogPhoto.png

San Francisco, California – A media monitoring service that creates a text-searchable database of television and radio content is defending its fair use rights before a federal appeals court. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), New York University’s Technology Law and Policy Clinic, and Public Knowledge urged the court Wednesday to protect this innovative technology–and others that have yet to be developed–from being shut down by copyright infringement claims.

“Search engines and book digitization have proven the enormous social benefits of indexing and archiving the media,” said EFF Staff Attorney Kit Walsh. “This case is the latest in a long line of copyright-based challenges to these important tools, and it should fail just as the others have.”

In this case, Fox News sued a company called TVEyes, claiming the company’s broadcast content database–used by journalists, scholars, and political campaigns to study and monitor the national media–infringed its copyright in its programming. The district court acknowledged that the service is generally a fair use of copyrighted material, but then, in a second ruling, held that some of the features of the TVEyes database could facilitate infringement, including the ability to share links or search by date and time. In a departure from established legal precedent, the court ruled that this was enough to defeat TVEyes’ fair use defense.

Continue reading

By

2016-03-24-blogphoto.png

Hammond, Indiana – Trademark lawyers for Plaintiff Family Express Corporation of Valparaiso, Indiana filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and trademark cancellation in the Northern District of Indiana.

The Defendant in this litigation is Square Donuts Inc., which has stores in Terre Haute, Indianapolis, Bloomington and Richmond, Indiana. Defendant owns two registered federal trademarks: SQUARE DONUTS, Trademark Reg. No.4341135 for “café services,” and “SQUARE DONUTS” & Design, Trademark Reg. No. 4341136 for “retail bakery shops.” It also holds an Indiana State trademark for the mark “Square Donuts, Inc.” Both Plaintiff and Defendant sell donuts.

The dispute arose in 2006, when a trademark attorney for Defendant Square Donuts sent a letter to Plaintiff Family Express accusing it of “making square donuts and marketing the same under the name ‘Square Donuts,'” which it asserted was a violation of Defendant’s trademark rights. Legal counsel for Family Express responded that there was no trademark infringement, as “square donuts” was merely descriptive and, thus, could not be registered as a trademark without a showing of acquired distinctiveness. Family Express’ trademark lawyer also noted that the trademark in question was not registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office but rather with the State of Indiana.

Ten years later, the dispute remains unresolved. Square Donuts, Inc. has acquired two federal trademarks and continues to express its concerns about Plaintiff’s use of “square donuts” in the marketing its donut products. Plaintiff proposed a co-existence agreement but the notion of such an agreement was rejected.

In January 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register Family Express’s “SQUARE DONUTS” mark, Application No. 86779997, in Class 030 for “donuts” and in Class 035 for “retail convenience stores” on the grounds of likely confusion with Defendant’s preexisting trademark registrations for “SQUARE DONUTS.”

In this litigation, Plaintiff Family Express seeks the following from the court:

• Count I: Declaration of Non-Infringement

• Count II: Cancellation

Continue reading

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design