Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

August 8, 2025

Power Struggle: Cheng USA Accuses Bestrenogy of Patent Infringement

Cheng USA, Inc., a company based in Elkhart, Indiana and doing business under the names Arterra Distribution and WFCO Technologies, has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against Kunshan Jinhui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., which operates under the brand name Bestrenogy. The defendant is based in Jiangsu, China.

The lawsuit alleges that Bestrenogy is infringing on Cheng’s U.S. Patent No. 12,113,377, which covers a specific type of power conversion technology used in their popular WF-9855 converter charger. According to Cheng, Bestrenogy has been manufacturing, importing, using, and selling — or offering to sell — its AD-CB Battery Charger 9800 Series in the United States, and that this product incorporates technology covered by Cheng’s patent without authorization. The complaint includes images and descriptions of Bestrenogy’s product sold on Amazon.com that Cheng claims directly infringes on the patent.

Cheng further accuses Bestrenogy of willful infringement, meaning it believes the defendant knew about the patent and still proceeded with the infringing activity. In addition to patent infringement, Cheng is also bringing claims of unfair competition and false designation of origin. The company alleges that Bestrenogy’s marketing materials, including the use of certain symbols, customer service contacts, and product descriptions, could mislead consumers into believing Bestrenogy’s products are associated with or approved by Cheng.

August 6, 2025

172 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Entities in July 2025

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 172 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in July 2025 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

RegistrationNumber	Wordmark
7859825	EPIC
7849508	FC
7865244	P
7865245	POST PARTUM CARE USA
7848097	LUSSO

August 4, 2025

License to Grill? Meat Company, Lighthouse Custom Meats LLC, Sued Over Rib Photo Use

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A recent lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana centers on allegations of copyright infringement involving a photograph of barbecued pork ribs. The plaintiff, Rockefeller Photos, LLC, a media company based in Florida, accuses Lighthouse Custom Meats LLC, a meat processing business in Bloomfield, Indiana, of using a copyrighted photograph without permission.

According to the complaint, the photo in question—entitled “PorkRib001_ADL, 07-05-1999”—was created by a professional photographer for a company called Prepared Food Photos, which is represented by Rockefeller Photos. This image was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2017 and assigned Registration Number VA-2-046-789. Rockefeller Photos claims it was granted exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and take legal action over any unauthorized use of the image.

The complaint states that Lighthouse Custom Meats used the copyrighted photo on its Facebook page on two separate occasions in May 2023 to promote its business. The plaintiff alleges the image was likely found online and used without obtaining a license or seeking permission.

July 28, 2025

Snapshot Sacrilege: Photographer Claims Crucifixion Image Was Taken in Vain

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Photographer Sam Mugraby has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Nuthak Insurance, LLC. Mugraby, an Israeli citizen and owner of Boxist.com, alleges that the Indiana-based insurance company used one of his copyrighted images without permission.

The image in question is titled “Jesus On Cross At Sunset,” a professionally created photo that Mugraby registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2016 (Registration No. VA-2-031-867). According to the complaint, the photograph includes copyright information identifying Mugraby as the creator and owner. Mugraby claims that Nuthak Insurance used the image on its website and social media to advertise its services without securing a license or obtaining permission.

Mugraby discovered the use in August 2024 and says he contacted the company in writing. The complaint argues that the image was used for commercial purposes, and that Nuthak Insurance either ignored or removed the visible copyright notice.

July 25, 2025

R Bar’s Unauthorized Playlist Sparks $30K-Per-Song Copyright Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana by two music publishing companies, Delicate Music and W Chappell Music Corp., against A and R, Inc. and Amy Gatchel. The companies are accusing the defendants of copyright infringement for publicly playing music without proper licensing.

The plaintiffs claim that A and R, Inc., which owns and operates R Bar in South Bend, Indiana, has played songs owned by the plaintiffs without authorization. Amy Gatchel is named in the suit as an individual responsible for managing and operating R Bar. According to the complaint, both the company and Gatchel had control over what music was played at the venue and financially benefited from those performances.

The music in question is part of a large catalog managed by the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), a group that licenses music on behalf of its members. ASCAP reportedly tried more than sixty times to contact the defendants through various means, offering them licenses to legally play the music. The complaint states that these offers were consistently refused, and the music continued to be played without permission.

July 21, 2025

Framed: A Shot from the 2001 World Series Sparks Legal Exposure in Kelly v. Young

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana by photographer David E. Kelly has been transferred to the federal court in Arizona as of June 17, 2025. Kelly, who resides in Carmel, Indiana, brought the case against a wide range of individuals and entities, including private citizens, public officials, and corporations such as eBay and the United States Army Procurement Division. The suit alleges unauthorized reproduction, sale, and distribution of a copyrighted photograph he captured during the 2001 World Series.

According to the complaint, Kelly registered the copyright for the photo in 2002 and operated a business called Big League Photos LLC. He claims that one of the main defendants, Raymond Cedric Young, illegally reproduced and sold counterfeit versions of the photo, while fraudulently claiming to own the business. Kelly says he issued over 70 cease-and-desist notices and reached a handful of out-of-court settlements, but was unable to stop the widespread sale and distribution of the counterfeit prints.

He also alleges that former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio helped distribute the counterfeit work through charity auctions and military channels, and that judges and law enforcement in Arizona failed to act on his complaints. Kelly states that he was repeatedly denied justice through improper court delays and a lack of enforcement of previous judgments in his favor.

July 18, 2025

Rethinking Schedule A: Federal Courts Reexamine Mass IP Enforcement Tactics

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A recent court order in Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A highlights a shift in judicial handling of certain intellectual property lawsuits commonly known as “Schedule A” cases. These cases are typically filed under the Lanham Act, Copyright Act, or Patent Act against numerous online sellers, and often involve sealed dockets, temporary restraining orders, and asset freezes — all granted on an emergency, or ex parte, basis without prior notice to the defendants.

In this June 9, 2025 order, Judge John F. Kness of the Northern District of Illinois placed the case on hold and stayed all pending motions. The judge noted this pause would allow the court to reevaluate how these Schedule A cases are handled. Specifically, the court is taking a fresh look at whether these practices are appropriate and fair. The issues under review include whether ex parte proceedings should be the norm, whether sealing most or all of the case docket is justified, whether restraining orders and asset freezes should be issued without prior notice, and whether it’s proper to group numerous defendants into one lawsuit.

The case was not dismissed, but plaintiffs like Warner Bros.v were told they could choose to voluntarily move their lawsuits to another district. However, any further filings in the case would require permission from the court.

July 14, 2025

Rock and Troll: Led Zeppelin Takes on Online Sellers in Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A British company owned by the members of Led Zeppelin has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Indiana, accusing a group of unidentified online sellers—referred to in the complaint as “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A”—of selling counterfeit merchandise that uses the band’s trademarks without authorization. The company, Superhype Tapes Limited, is based in London and owns the rights to several trademarks associated with Led Zeppelin, one of the most influential rock bands in history. The trademarks at issue in the case are LED ZEPPELIN (U.S. Reg. No. 4,340,692) and THE LED ZEPPELIN EXPERIENCE (U.S. Reg. No. 5,663,514).

According to the complaint, the online sellers have created e-commerce stores designed to trick consumers into thinking they’re buying legitimate Led Zeppelin merchandise. These stores, operating under multiple aliases, allegedly use similar design elements and even search keywords tied to the band’s name to attract buyers looking for official products.

The lawsuit says that the sellers are offering unauthorized goods such as clothing, posters, and other items that imitate the real products made and sold under Led Zeppelin’s brand. Superhype Tapes claims the merchandise not only infringes on their trademarks but also harms their reputation by confusing customers and diluting the value of the brand.

July 11, 2025

BMI Cranks Up the Volume in Another Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Jams: Broadcast Music, Inc v. Mikie’s Pub

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) along with several music publishers have filed yet another lawsuit in Indiana this year (previous lawsuit), this time against 5135 Emerson LLC, which operates Mikie’s Pub in Indianapolis, and against an individual named Scott Coyle. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants publicly played copyrighted songs from the BMI catalog without securing the necessary license.

According to the complaint, BMI is authorized to license performance rights for more than 22 million musical works and represents the other named plaintiffs, each of whom owns rights to one or more of the songs allegedly played without permission. BMI claims it contacted the defendants more than 75 times since January 2024 via phone, email, and mail—including sending cease and desist notices—in an effort to secure compliance and avoid legal action.

Despite these warnings, the lawsuit alleges that Mikie’s Pub continued to publicly perform music without a proper license, leading to three specific instances of copyright infringement. The complaint details the titles of the songs involved, the dates they were played, and the fact that no permission or license was obtained. BMI argues that these acts were willful and part of an ongoing pattern of infringement.

July 7, 2025

Northern District of Indiana to Begin Directly Assigning Magistrate Judges to New Cases

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Starting July 7, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana will implement a new order changing how civil cases are assigned—expanding the role of Magistrate Judges.

Most civil cases will now be randomly assigned to either a District or Magistrate Judge. If a Magistrate Judge is assigned, parties will receive a notice after the initial scheduling order and have 21 days to consent to the Magistrate Judge handling the entire case, including trial. If all parties consent, the Magistrate Judge will oversee all proceedings. If any party declines, the case goes to a District Judge, with the Magistrate Judge assisting with pretrial matters.

The court highlights Magistrate Judges as vital to timely and efficient case resolution. Because they don’t have to prioritize criminal cases, they can often move civil cases faster, saving time and cost.