The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 174 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in July 2020, 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.

1 RE048122 Filter element endplate defining inflow and outflow flow paths
2 D0891646 Light assembly
3 D0891585 Faucet
4 10,727,956 Wireless sensors in medical environments
5 10,727,520 Fuel cell stack assembly
6 10,727,084 Method for creating through-connected vias and conductors on a substrate

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 172 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana inJuly 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and Foreign Trademark Searches, Trademark Aplications and assists with enforcing Trademarks via Infringement Litigation and Licensing.

1 6115373 BANKRUPTCYBYPHONE.COM
2 6113380 OCTODOR
3 6113201 AVID LABS
4 6113199 A AVID LABS
5 6112679 DR. PATTI
6 6115341 BLUE JAR COLLECTION

Continue reading

Hammond, IndianaNexus Staffing, Inc. (“Nexus Staffing”), the Plaintiff, claims Nexus Employment Solutions Plus of Indiana, Inc. (“Nexus Employment”), the Defendant, intentionally infringed its rights in U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,722,627 for the word “NEXUS” in connection with employment recruiting and professional staffing services. According to the Complaint, Nexus Staffing has used the NEXUS Mark in connection with staffing and employment services throughout the United States since at least 2005.

Nexus Staffing claims it sent a cease and desist letter to Nexus Employment in July 2018, but Nexus Employment took no action to cease its use of its allegedly confusingly similar name. Nexus Staffing further claims actual consumer confusion has occurred and is likely to continue if Nexus Employment continues using the NEXUS Mark. Based on the allegations, Nexus Staffing is seeking damages for intentional trademark infringement, false advertising, and cyberpiracy, all under the Lanham Act.

The case was assigned to District Judge Theresa L. Springmann and Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar in the Northern District and assigned Case 2:20-cv-00166-TLS-JPK.

Evansville, Indiana – According to the Complaint, DMI Sports, Inc. (“DMI”) entered into an Asset Purchase and License Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Arachnid, Inc. (“Arachnid”) to purchase Arachnid’s “Consumer Products Line” of dart related products in 1999. Along with the Purchase Agreement, DMI allegedly obtained a Trademark License to make and sell consumer goods under the ARACHNID trademarks (the “Licensed Marks”). Under the Purchase Agreement, Arachnid allegedly retained the ARACHNID name and trademarks to sell dart products commercially. Indian Industries, Inc. d/b/a Escalade Sports (“Escalade”), the Plaintiff, claims to have acquired DMI in 2013 along with the Trademark License. Escalade claims Arachnid 360, the Defendant, is the successor in interest to Arachnid.

Escalade claims that Arachnid 360 began promoting a consumer dart game under the Licensed Marks around August 2015. While Arachnid 360 apparently claimed to have no knowledge of the Purchase Agreement, once it reviewed the Purchase Agreement, Arachnid 360 claimed Escalade was in violation of the Quality Control section for failure to provide samples of new products. Escalade claims after it provided samples to Arachnid 360, the company did not pursue their claims Escalade breached the Purchase Agreement. About four years later in January 2020, Arachnid 360 allegedly sent a letter to Escalade claiming Escalade had materially breached the Purchase Agreement. After responding that it had not breached the Purchase Agreement, Escalade claims Arachnid 360 sent it a letter purporting to terminate the Trademark License.

Continue reading

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Flexible Steel Lacing Co.’s (“Flexco”) trade dress is invalid because it is functional.

Flexco originally filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division for trade dress infringement and unfair competition against Conveyor Accessories, Inc. (“CAI”). CAI counterclaimed seeking cancellation of Flexco’s trademarks and seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CAI, finding that Flexco’s trade dress was functional because the product’s utilitarian advantages were disclosed in an expired utility patent, internal corporate documents, and advertising materials.

This case was before Chief Judge, Diane Wood, Judge Joel Flaum and Judge Kenneth Ripple assigned Appeal No. 19-2035 and was decided April 7, 2020.

Indianapolis, IndianaJeremy Meier d/b/a Meier Photography (“Meier”), the Plaintiff, claims to be a professional photographer and owner of U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 1-381-446 which includes 380 photographs taken in the Spring of 2019 (the “Registered Photos”). According to the Complaint, Kelley Global Brands, LLC d/b/a KLH Audio (“KLH”), the Defendant, manufactures and sells audio equipment. Meier claims KLH used and published some of the Registered Photos without paying for the use and without the authorized consent of Meier resulting in copyright infringement.

However, the Complaint further states, that Meier and KLH “entered into an agreement pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to take certain photos in exchange for Defendant paying for the rights to use said photos (the ‘Agreement’).” This may create an issue over whether the copyright infringement can be maintained. If KLH obtained “rights to use the Photos,” it may have a valid defense of “license.”

A similar issue was raised in the famous case known as the “exploding yogurt factory case.”

Continue reading

U.S. Supreme Court–Frederick Allen (“Allen”) was hired as a videographer to document the recovery of the Queen Anne’s Revenge shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Allen worked to document the recovery for over a decade and registered copyrights for his works. When North Carolina published some of Allen’s work online, Allen sued for copyright infringement. North Carolina moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground of state sovereign immunity; while Allen argued the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (“CRCA”) removed the States’ sovereign immunity.

The District Court agreed with Allen while the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of North Carolina on March 23, 2020.

Sovereign immunity has recently been the basis for granting summary judgment in several recent copyright cases in the Southern District of Indiana, namely at least Richard N. Bell v. Jay L. Hess, Case No. 1:16-cv-02463-TWP-DML, (S.D. Ind. March 9, 2018) and Richard N. Bell v. Jason Henderson, Case No. 1:16-cv-02488-RLY-DML, (S.D. Ind. July 23, 2018).

Hammond, Indiana – Sundance Botanicals, LLC (“Sundance”), the Plaintiff, allegedly sells and distributes elderberry syrups bearing the mark “ELDERPOWER.” The ELDERPOWER mark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under U.S. Registration No. 5,821,635 for “Immune boosting nutritional supplements made from elderberries and organic ingredients” in 2019.

According to the Complaint, The Power of Elderberries, LLC (“Defendant”) markets and sells elderberry syrup with the mark “THE POWER OF ELDERBERRIES.” Sundance claims Defendant knew of the ELDERPOWER mark prior to adopting its mark and adopted the design elements and name for its elderberry syrup bottles in bad faith “to infringe and pray on Sundance’s goodwill.” The Defendant filed a U.S. trademark application for its mark in June 2019. Sundance then opposed the registration of the Defendant’s mark in February 2020. Opposition No. 91,253,891 is currently suspended pending the outcome of this civil suit.

Continue reading

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 245 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2020, 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
RE048069 Fire-fighting monitor with remote control
D0888670 Cable connectors
D0888611 Buckle cover
D0888536 Compact electronic lock
   10,698,429 Electronic user interface for electronic mixing of water for residential faucets
   10,697,701 Method and apparatus to prevent electronic device screen damage

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 159 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

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.

Reg. Number Word Mark
6079502 VERA BRADLEY
6074510 SOLARBAG
6081975 DRAKE’S CARWASH
6087506 GROUND FREIGHT SOLUTIONS
6085844 GO WITH EXPERIENCE. GO WITH GERLING.
6085713 CALZBONE

Continue reading

Contact Information