The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 262 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.  Word Mark Click To View
4975014 EDWIN TSDR
4973313 NCDN TSDR

Continue reading

Northern District of Indiana – Trademark counsel for Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed two new copyright infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of copyrighted architectural plans.

The first lawsuit, filed in the Fort Wayne Division, lists two Defendants, Westport Homes of Fort Wayne, Inc. and Westport Homes, Inc. They are accused of infringing Plaintiff’s “Plan No. 3090 – Jarrett,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 624-154 and 624-153. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ infringing plans are marketed under the names Fairfield and Fairmont.

The second lawsuit was filed in the Hammond Division against Defendant Precision Homes, Inc. doing business as Precision Construction, Inc. and Precision Homes of Indiana, Inc. A second Plaintiff, W.L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, was listed in this lawsuit.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs state that Precision Homes offers six architectural plans, which are offered under the names Richmond, Raleigh, Durham, Kara, Abigail and Auburn, that infringe upon copyrighted works. Plaintiffs state that three copyrighted plans were infringed: “Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 282-203 & 752-162; “Plan No. 3588 – Stratman,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 682-254, 682-253 & 756-041; and “Plan No. 24120 – Langlade,” Copyright Registration No. VA 1-073-400.

In both cases, the court is asked to order damages, equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading


Earlier this month, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) became federal law. The DTSA grants the owners of trade secrets the right to sue in federal court for misappropriation of a trade secret that is “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” Previously, protection of trade secrets was offered only under state law, with most states having adopted a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”). The new federal law will supplement, not replace, those state laws.

The DTSA, while it mirrors the UTSA in many respects, adds several notable elements. In addition to creating original jurisdiction in federal district court over civil actions brought under the law, the DTSA also provides for the ex parte seizure of property where necessary to prevent the disclosure of the trade secret at issue in the lawsuit. This seizure is permitted only in “extraordinary circumstances,” including those situations where immediate and irreparable injury to the plaintiff will result if the seizure is not ordered. The party requesting an ex parte seizure must post security and, in cases where such a seizure is obtained wrongfully, the DTSA makes damages available to the defendant. Moreover, the Act recognizes the problem of international trade secret theft. The provision allowing for ex parte seizure of property is “expected to be used in instances in which a defendant is seeking to flee the country.”

The DTSA also includes a provision permitting the entry of an injunction prohibiting a person from accepting employment if there is a sufficient threat of misappropriation of a trade secret. In lesser cases, the individual may begin employment but will be subject to conditions enunciated by the court.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana, a copyright attorney and professional photographer, filed a new batch of lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana.

In each lawsuit, Bell asserts infringement of his intellectual property rights under Copyright Registration No. VA0001785115. This copyright registration, issued by the U.S. Copyright Office, covers photos entitled “Indianapolis Photo” and “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.” Each complaint also lists a count of unfair competition.

Defendants in the eight new lawsuits are as follows:

• Sunbelt Business Advisors of Indiana of Indianapolis, Indiana
• Marian University of Indianapolis, Indiana
• Top Class Moving, Inc. of Morton Grove, Illinois
• Profusion 360, LLC of La Mirada, California
• Cynthia Vivona and Megan Peyton, both of Fishers, Indiana
• Steve Knapp and Judgment Recovery of Indiana, both of Greenwood, Indiana
• AmWINS Group Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana

• Future Technology Solutions, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana

Bell seeks the maximum statutory damages allowable, contending in each lawsuit that Defendant(s) is/are willfully infringing “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” Bell seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from all Defendants.

Practice Tip: Bell, a frequent litigant, has been discussed here before. See:

Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Bell Sues Georgia-Based for Copyright Infringement
Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Continue reading


New Albany, Indiana – Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska initiated litigation in the Southern District of Indiana. It alleges that Defendant Premier Homes of Southern Indiana, Inc. of Clarksville, Indiana infringed a copyrighted architectural plan.

The architectural work at issue in this lawsuit is Design Basic’s “Plan No. 6731 – Tollefson,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 1-056-612 and 1-070-148.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Premier Homes infringed its copyrighted material by publishing, distributing, marketing, advertising and/or constructing in the marketplace designs offered as “Skylre” and “Skylre with Bonus Room.”

In this complaint, filed by Indiana copyright attorneys for Plaintiff, the court is asked to order equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading


Washington, D.C. – The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) recently became federal law. This statute creates a federal right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets.

Among the provisions of the DTSA are new protections for whistleblowers. Under the DTSA, immunity is granted to persons who disclose a trade secret to a government official or attorney for the sole purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law. This immunity covers both civil and criminal liability under either federal or state trade secret law.

The DTSA also provides that trade secret information may be used in litigation by an employee who sues an employer alleging retaliation for having reported a suspected violation of law. The law requires that certain steps be taken during litigation to prevent disclosure of the trade secret.


Hammond, Indiana – Plaintiff Duke Imports Inc. of Angola, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant All That Jazz Trading LLC of LaGrange, Indiana infringed its trademark for BAMBOO LUXURY.

Duke, a wholesaler of bedding, towels and related products asserts ownership to Trademark Registration No. 4,923,500 for BAMBOO LUXURY, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Duke claims that it first used the trademark in connection with the sale of sheets and other bedding products in April 2015.

It contends that All That Jazz, which also wholesales bedding, towels and related products, has sold sheets using the BAMBOO LUXURY trademark. Duke states that Defendant used BAMBOO LUXURY with “actual and/or constructive knowledge of Duke Imports’ senior use and ownership” of the trademark and that the use was a willful infringement.

In a lawsuit filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, the following claims are asserted against Defendant:

• Count One: 15 U.S.C.§ 1125(a)

• Count Two: Common Law Unfair Competition

Plaintiff seeks damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Novembal USA, Inc. of Edison, New Jersey filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. Defendant is Closure Systems International, Inc., of Indianapolis, Indiana.

Novembal is in the business of development, production and sale of products associated with the production, processing, packaging and distribution of food. In this recent federal lawsuit, it has accused Closure Systems of infringing a patent covering bottle-cap products, which is entitled “Cap For A Container Neck.” This patent is protected by Patent No. 9,199,769 (the “‘769 patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.


Novembal contends that Closure Systems has infringed and continues to infringe, has contributed to the infringement of, or induced infringement of at least claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 of the ‘769 patent. Novembal further claims that Closure Systems’ infringement has been willful.

In this lawsuit, the Indiana patent attorney for Novembal lists a single count: “Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,199,769 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

Novembal seeks damages, including punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiffs Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana and Backsaver International, Inc. d/b/a Gorilla-Lift of Somerset, Kentucky filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendants are MORryde International, Inc. and MOR/ryde Inc.

This lawsuit alleging patent infringement follows another recent lawsuit, also alleging patent infringement, that Lippert filed against Defendants recently. That lawsuit, filed by Lippert as sole Plaintiff, asserted infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,182,401; 6,176,045 and 6,598,354.

This second lawsuit adds Backsaver as a second Plaintiff and asserts infringement of different intellectual property, namely U.S. Patent No. 6,550,840, entitled “Tailgate Lift Assembly.”


Indiana patent lawyers for Plaintiffs contend that infringement by Defendants was willful and deliberate in a complaint listing a single count, “Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,840.” Plaintiffs ask the Indiana federal court for damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Hammond, Indiana – A trademark attorney for Plaintiff NIBCO Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana commenced trademark infringement litigation in the Northern District of Indiana.

Defendant in the litigation is Legend Valve & Fitting, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. It is accused of infringing NIBCO’s HYDRAPURE trademark, which has been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Trademark Registration Nos. 4,296,125 and 4,314,186 in conjunction with the sale of metal pipe fittings.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s use of HYPERPURE to market its goods creates an identical commercial impression to Plaintiff’s HYDRAPURE trademark. Calling Defendant’s use “a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation” of its own trademark, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s use of HYPERPURE will confuse consumers as to the source of the goods.

2016-05-12-blogphoto.pngPlaintiff further contends that Defendant Legend chose the HYPERPURE mark in bad faith in an attempt to associate Defendant’s products with Plaintiff’s trademark and, in so doing, appropriate the goodwill that Plaintiff has built in the brand.

In this Indiana lawsuit, a trademark lawyer for NIBCO lists the following claims:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition/False Designation of Origin
• Count III: Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition

• Count V: Federal Trademark Dilution

NIBCO asks the court for equitable relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and attorney fees.

Continue reading

Contact Information