Granger, Indiana – Zachary Richard Zellers has filed a lawsuit against Diz Jackson and two unknown defendants, using “John Doe” as placeholders, claiming thePic-1y are using his trademark “DJ Zman” without permission. Zellers, who claims to own the trademark through his DJ, Audio/Visual, and stage production business, DJ ZMAN LLC, argues the defendants’ use of the name online and on social media is damaging his brand and constitutes trademark infringement. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, includes documents showing that Indiana officially issued the trademark in question to DJ ZMAN LLC on February 20, 2025.

However, Judge Damon R. Leichty responded to the complaint, highlighting several issues with Zellers’ self-filed case. He explained that Zellers, who requested a waiver for filing fees due to financial hardship, did not meet the necessary legal requirements for a trademark infringement case. The judge noted that Zellers failed to provide enough detail about the harm caused and emphasized that the trademark belongs to DJ ZMAN LLC, not Zellers personally. Therefore, the lawsuit should be filed by the company, which must also be represented by a lawyer in court.

The court also noted that Zellers cannot use “John Doe” placeholders for the unknown defendants. Instead, he or the company must identify the defendants and provide their details. Judge Leichty gave Zellers until March 28, 2025, to amend his complaint and comply with the required legal procedures. Zellers was also informed he could reapply to have the court waive his fees after making the necessary changes.

735-PhotoFortress Iron L.P. filed a lawsuit against Digger Specialties, Inc. for patent infringement, alleging that Digger’s Westbury VertiCable Aluminum Railing violates Fortress’s U.S. Patents 11,643,838 (the “‘838 Patent”) and 12,180,735 (the “‘735 Patent”). The complaint states that Fortress, a Texas-based company, is the owner of the patents protecting its FortressCable V-Series steel cable railing systemv. Meanwhile, the court documents assert that Digger, based in Indiana, produces a similar product and has reportedly cAccused-Productontinued to sell it despite being notified of the alleged infringement.

The lawsuit claims that Digger’s product infringes on the patents, particularly regarding features such as the design of vertical cable barriers and adjustable end members for tension control. Fortress seeks monetary damages, treble damages for willful infringement, and an injunction to stop Digger from continuing to sell the infringing product.

The case has been assigned to Judge Damon R. Leichty and Magistrate Judge Scott J. Frankel in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana Case No. 3:25-cv-00099.

Plaintiff Morgan Howarth, through his legal counsel, filed a complaint against Defendant Premier Aquascapes LTD for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. According to the complaint, Howarth, a professional photographer based in Virginia, owns the rights to a photograph of a luxury backyard pool and has commercial licensing rights for its online and print use.

Premier Aquascapes, an Indiana landscaping company, operates multiple social media accounts, including “premiereaquascapes” on Facebook, “@PremiereAqua” on X (formerly Twitter), and “@premiereaqua” on Facebook. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used his Photograph without permission, violating U.S. copyright laws.Pic-1024x464

Court documents claim the Photograph was registered with the United States Copyright Office (USCO) on January 19, 2017. Despite Plaintiff’s attempts to resolve the issue in October and November 2024, the Defendant allegedly continued to infringe on the work, resulting in harm to the Photograph’s commercial market.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  213 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2025 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration Number                      Wordmark
7692346 MAKE YOUR DREAMS TAKE FLIGHT
7676658 TRAVELIN
7679708 ROLL TO ONE
7694786 FOUNDER’S COLLEGE AT BUTLER UNIVERSITY
7689609 STEELTOWN
7697199 PROTRONIX
7688162 ISF SIGNS

Continue reading

Pic-2Plaintiffs Inpres, Inc. and TWM IP LLC have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Alltrista Plastics LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,585,460 (the “‘460 Patent”). The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has infringed upon the ‘460 Patent, which relates to a screw-based dispenser system with a locking elevator mechanism, and is seeking relief, including damages and an injunction. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant’s products unlawfully replicate the patented technology and that the infringement has been willful.

The accused patent, titled “Screw-Based Dispenser Having Locking Elevator and Elevator Retention Mechanism,” was issued on March 7, 2017. It specifically addresses issues with propel/repel dispensers used for consumer products such as lip balms and creams, particularly solving a problem known as “up-elevator,” where the elevator mechanism in the dispenser advances too soon.

According to the Complaint, Alltrista, operating as Jarden Plastics in 2018, purchased a large quantity of lip balm dispensers from Inpres, which incorporated the patented elevator retention mechanism. Alltrista was provided detailed specifications and engineering drawings by Inpres under confidentiality agreements, highlighting the proprietary nature of the materials. However, after returning most of the purchased units, Alltrista allegedly used these specifications to develop its own dispensers incorporating the patented technology.

Catalyst Medium Four Inc. (operating as Smartish) has filed a lawsuit against Scooch, LLC, accusing them of unfair competition. Smartish claims that Scooch has been selling mobile phone cases that closely resemble Smartish’s distinctive designs, particularly those from its popular “Wallet Slayer” series. The lawsuit argues that Scooch is trying to take advantage of Smartish’s years of innovation and marketing efforts by selling cases with similar designs and packaging.

According to the Complaint, Smartish, based in Austin, Texas, has been designing and selling mobile phone cases since 2011. The unique design of its “Wallet Slayer” series, with a thumb-out cut on the left for easy pocket access and a card slot on the right, has led consumers to associate this feature with Smartish. The Wallet Slayer has been a key product, with hundreds of thousands of units sold each year, backed by millions spent on advertising across platforms like Amazon, Walmart, and eBay.

Smartish argues that Scooch’s Moneymate case closely mimics the design and look of the Wallet Slayer, creating a risk of consumer confusion. The lawsuit claims that Scooch’s productPic-1 may mislead customers into thinking it is connected to or endorsed by Smartish. The marketing images used by Scooch are also said to closely resemble those used by Smartish, adding to the potential for confusion.

LogoRestoPros Franchising, LLC, a North Carolina-based company specializing in restoration and mold remediation services, has filed a lawsuit against Indiana company, SFTS Services, Inc. and its owners, Dale L. Bailey and Brandy M. Bailey. The lawsuit accuses the Baileys of trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and breaching their franchise agreement with RestoPros. Specifically, RestoPros alleges that the Baileys used its registered trademark “RESTOPROS” and confidential business information to launch a competing business, “Restore and Renew Professionals,” after leaving the RestoPros franchise. The Baileys are also accused of improperly using RestoPros’ branding, phone numbers, and customer reviews for the new business, while failing to adhere to various terms of the franchise agreement, including payments and territorial restrictions.

Despite multiple cease-and-desist requests, the Defendants reportedly ignored RestoPros’ attempts to settle the matter outside of court. RestoPros is seeking damages for breach of contract, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Additionally, the company is requesting an injunction to prevent the Defendants from continuing to use its trademarks or operate their competing business.

The case has been assigned to Judge Matthew P. Brookman and Magistrate Judge Kellie M. Barr in the U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana Case No. 1:24-cv-02171.

Christopher Sadowski, a photojournalist from New Jersey, has filed a lawsuit against Fortner Services Inc., operating as Fortner Pest Control, for alleged copyright infringement. Sadowski, who has been published in various prominent outlets, including the New York Post and USA Today, has built a reputation not only for his award-winning photography but also for his diligent efforts to protect his intellectual property.  Over the years, he has filed multiple copyright infringement claims against various parties for unauthorized use of his work (See previous blog posts about these suits here, here, here, and here.).

As a self-employed photographer, Sadowski owns the rights to his work and licenses his photographs under terms that retain his copyright. The current suit states that in 2022, Sadowski created a photograph titled “112120rat5CS,” which was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in December 2022. The photograph was later licensed to the New York Post and appeared in an article, with appropriate attribution to Sadowski.

Fortner Services, a pest control company based in Bedford, Indiana, operates a website and maintains a presence on social media. On December 13, 2023, Fortner allegedly displayed Sadowski’sPic copyrighted photograph on its website and social media without obtaining permission. Sadowski claims that Fortner did not contact him to request a license for use of the image, which was intended for commercial purposes.

PatentPic-225x300BTL Industries, Inc. (BTL) has filed a lawsuit against Be Minked Beauty & Company LLC and its owner, Britney Humphrey, accusing them of patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. BTL, based in Massachusetts, develops and sells technology used for body-contouring treatments. Their EMSCULPT® and EMSCULPT NEO® devices use electromagnetic energy to tone muscles and have become leaders in the aesthetic industry.

TMPic-300x220According to the Complaint BTL holds a patent (Patent No. 10,478,634) for the technology used in these devices and has multiple registered trademarks for names like EMSCULPT® and HIFEM®. The company alleges that Be Minked is selling a device called the “Emsculpt RF Machine” that infringes on BTL’s patent. Additionally, BTL says Be Minked is using their trademarked names, such as “EMSCULPT” and “HIFEM,” without permission on their website.

BTL reportedly sent Be Minked a cease & desist letter about the infringement but says the company ignored it. BTL is now asking theTM-Pic-2-300x173 court to stop Be Minked from using its patented technology and trademarks, and they want financial damages, including a minimum of $125,000 for the alleged patent violation. They’re also asking for a permanent ban on Be Minked using any of BTL’s trademarks or confusingly similar names and for the company to pay for BTL’s legal fees. BTL is also seeking to shut down Be Minked’s website and freeze their bank accounts.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  265 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2025 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration     Number          Wordmark
7642226 IHTC
7642235 INDIANA BLOODWORX
7642225
7643084 IT’S NOT NORMAL
7643134 THREE FLOYDS

Continue reading

Contact Information