The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 272 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in August 2025 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| RegistrationNumber | Wordmark |
| 7918163 | |
| 7918162 | COMPASS PARK |
| 7922258 | I INDUSTRIALPC.COM |
| 7895756 | FOUNDATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION |
| 7908594 | THE EMPLOYER, HEALTHCARE PROVIDER NETWORK |
A trademark dispute over the name “JD Sports” has reached federal court in Indiana. The Finish Line, Inc., which does business as JD Sports, along with its parent company JD Sports Fashion Plc, is asking the court to declare that its use of the JD Sports name does not infringe on the rights of J.D. Sport LLC, a Pennsylvania company.
JD Sports Fashion Plc, based in the United Kingdom, operates thousands of stores worldwide and more than 300 in the United States. It holds several federal trademark registrations for “JD” and “JD Sports,” some classified as incontestable under U.S. law. The company states it has used these marks in the U.S. for years, first through online sales and later through physical stores, including several in Pennsylvania.
J.D. Sport LLC, founded in 1989 in Pennsylvania, operates a single store that provides custom embroidery, screen printing, and team apparel for local schools and organizations. The business does not have federal trademark registrations and instead relies on common law rights tied to its local use of the “J.D. Sport” name.
A federal lawsuit has been filed in Indiana by New York photographer John Taggart against Lonkero, LLC, which does business as The Long Drink Company. The case centers on claims that the LLC used one of Taggart’s copyrighted photographs without permission on its social media accounts.
According to the complaint, Taggart created and licensed a photograph of a line at a Manhattan bar, first published in March 2020 and registered with the U.S. Copyright Office the following month. He alleges that The Long Drink Company copied and posted the image on both its Instagram and Facebook pages in February 2025 as part of promotional content. Taggart says he did not grant a license or authorization for these uses and only discovered the posts in June 2025.
The filing accuses the company of knowingly engaging in copyright infringement by reproducing and displaying the photograph for commercial gain. Taggart claims the posts boosted the company’s online traffic and business revenue while undermining the market value of his work. He also argues that the company failed to maintain proper copyright compliance policies, amounting to willful disregard of the law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
