The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 192 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in November 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Registration Number | Wordmark |
| 85255683 | U LOFT.COM |
| 97835504 | CT |
| 85263428 | LOFT ORIGINAL EST. 1986 |
| 85263473 | VARSITY LOFT CLUB |
| 90028764 | PAW BLOCK |
My Market, LLC, (Plaintiff) an Indiana-based convenience store operator, has initiated legal proceedings against Batth Markets, Inc. and Chhaterpal Singh (Defendants) for the unauthorized use of its trademarked business name. The lawsuit, filed under the Lanham Act and related Indiana state laws, addresses issues of trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. My Market claims that Batth Markets’ use of the name “My Market” has caused confusion in the marketplace, posing a threat to the reputation My Market has built through years of branding and business development.
My Market, LLC has been operating as a convenience store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and holds a federal trademark for the service mark “MY MARKET FISH · CHICKEN SANDWICHES · SHRIMP” (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,935,101), which was granted on December 27, 2022. This trademark is used to identify My Market’s services, particularly in the food industry. According to the complaint, on July 9, 2024, My Market’s counsel uncovered that Batth Markets had fraudulently obtained a Certificate of Assumed Business Name, allowing them to operate under the name “My Market” in Kingston, Indiana. This certificate was obtained through an allegedly forged letter, which gave Chhaterpal Singh permission to use the “My Market” name. The letter, purportedly signed by Mark owner, Mohammad A. Ghaffar, was neither authorized nor signed by him, and he claims no knowledge of it being filed.
The lawsuit claims that Batth Markets’ use of the “My Market” name infringes upon My Market’s federally registered trademark. My Market argues that the two businesses are highly similar in name, appearance, and the products they offer, including fried chicken, sandwiches, and other convenience store goods. This, according to the complaint, is likely to confuse customers into believing that Batth Markets is affiliated with or endorsed by My Market. The complaint further states that Batth Markets’ actions are deliberate and exploit My Market’s established goodwill, a claim supported by Batth Markets’ acknowledgment in the fraudulent letter that Ghaffar’s consent was needed to use the name. My Market also asserts that this confusion has resulted in financial harm, including lost sales and reputational damage.
The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 234 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2024:
| Patent Number | Patent Title |
| US 12129632 B2 | Valve assembly for an electronic faucet |
| US 12127560 B2 | Synergistic fungicidal mixtures and compositions comprising 5-fluoro-4-imino-3-methyl-1-tosyl-3,4-dihydropyrimidin-2(1H)-one for fungal control (SDHI) |
| US 12127719 B2 | Integrated emergency wash and shower system |
| US 12127942 B2 | Customizable augments and methods for acetabular implants |
| US 12128197 B2 | MRI compatible interventional wireguide |
Legacy Chiropractic, LLC, has filed a complaint against Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims. The complaint centers around Defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of the “LEGACY” trademark, which Plaintiff asserts is integral to its business and reputation. Since 2018, Plaintiff has operated Legacy Chiropractic in Shipshewana, Indiana, building a strong reputation for quality care, and the LEGACY mark has become a valuable asset attracting patients from across the U.S. and Canada.
The complaint states that despite Plaintiff’s established use of the LEGACY mark, Defendant, based in Warsaw, Indiana, began offering chiropractic services under the same name. In late 2019 or early 2020, Rebekah Franklin, the wife of Defendant’s CEO, contacted Plaintiff to inquire about purchasing the trademark, but Plaintiff declined. Defendant subsequently opened its clinic in March 2020, continuing to use the LEGACY mark. Defendant also registered the domain mylegacyfamilychiro.com in June 2020, incorporating the mark further into its marketing. Plaintiff claims that this has caused market confusion and that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s prior trademark rights.
Plaintiff’s legal claims include violations of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, along with claims of cybersquatting due to Defendant’s use of the domain name. Plaintiff also seeks relief under Indiana state law for unfair competition and requests the cancellation of Defendant’s state trademark registration for “LEGACY FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC,” arguing it was obtained in bad faith.
Hiker Industries, LLC (“Hiker”) has filed a lawsuit against Hyk Outdoors LLC (“Hyk”), alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under both federal and state laws. The complaint focuses on the use of marks by Hyk that Hiker claims are confusingly similar to its own registered trademarks. Hiker has been in the business of designing and manufacturing customizable trailers for over a decade, earning a reputation for quality and durability. Hiker contends that Hyk’s use of the marks “HYK OUTDOORS” and “HYK DESIGN” has led to consumer confusion, with potential customers mistakenly associating Hyk’s products with Hiker.
The lawsuit asserts that Hyk, which began using its marks in 2020, is unfairly capitalizing on the reputation that Hiker has built with its own trademarks, specifically the “HIKER TRAILER” and
“HIKER DESIGN” marks. According to Hiker, its years of investment in the trailer business have led to the development of a strong brand identity, which is at risk due to the similarities between the two sets of marks. Hiker claims that this confusion has resulted in lost sales and damage to its reputation, as consumers may believe that Hyk’s products are affiliated with Hiker.
Hiker is the registered owner of the “HIKER TRAILER” and “HIKER DESIGN” marks, which are used in connection with trailers and related goods. These marks have been featured in advertising, on product labels, and on apparel, contributing to Hiker’s brand recognition. Hyk, a company formed in 2019, began using its similar marks more than a decade after Hiker had first established its own. Despite this timeline, Hiker claims that the use of these similar marks by Hyk has caused confusion in the marketplace, leading to harm for Hiker’s business.
AWGI, LLC and Atlas Van Lines, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a lawsuit against Atlas Mover Group LLC (“AMG”) and United Best Moving LLC (“UBM”) (“Defendants”) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are unlawfully using the “Atlas” mark, which is associated with decades of goodwill and recognition in the moving and storage industry.
According to the complaint, Atlas Van Lines was founded in 1948 and has become a globally recognized brand, with over 430 independent agencies and partners in 140 countries. They own trademarks related to “Atlas,” which have been heavily promoted through advertising, online presence, and community engagement. Over the years, Atlas has built a reputation for high-quality service and earned substantial goodwill in its marks.
Defendants AMG and UBM are accused of using the “Atlas” name and logo on their website, and in their marketing materials. Plaintiffs argue that this usage creates confusion among consumers, who mistakenly believe AMG’s services are affiliated with Atlas Van Lines. Plaintiffs allege that this unauthorized use dilutes the distinctiveness of the Atlas Marks and harms their business reputation.
Caitlin V. Neal, a prominent sexologist and sexual health coach, has filed a lawsuit against an e-commerce merchant based in China for using her likeness without consent to promote its products. Neal, who has built a significant online presence across platforms like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, alleges that the defendant used her image in online ads for adult wellness products she does not endorse. Neal’s legal complaint centers on false endorsement under the Lanham Act and misappropriation of her right of publicity under Indiana law.
What makes this case particularly unusual is that the defendant’s identity is currently unknown. The complaint notes that “The name of the Point-of-Sale Site and other information that may be used to identify Defendant is being filed under seal. Plaintiff seeks leave to do so because Plaintiff intends to move for a temporary restraining order, through which the Court would impose a temporary asset freeze with respect to Defendant’s money transfer platform(s). In the absence of a temporary asset freeze, Plaintiff believes that Defendant would obtain advance notice of this suit and would transfer assets abroad, thereby frustrating this Court’s future rulings. Plaintiff also intends to seek expedited discovery, through which Plaintiff would receive additional information from third-party online marketplace platform(s) to further help identify Defendant.”
This suit reflects the challenges of pursuing legal action against anonymous or foreign entities in the digital age. Neal’s legal team is taking precautions to prevent the defendant from hiding assets abroad before a judgment can be made. Through the temporary restraining order and expedited discovery, they hope to uncover the defendant’s identity and ensure that any ruling in the case can be enforced.
Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical company known for developing innovative medicines and therapies, particularly in the radiopharmaceutical market. The company is taking steps to strengthen its position by filing lawsuits against competitors over alleged patent violations concerning its top cancer therapies, Pluvicto and Lutathera. These actions began in 2024 and involve Eli Lilly, its subsidiary, Point Biopharma, Lantheus, and Curium Pharma.
In June 2024, Novartis and the Purdue Research Foundation filed a lawsuit in Indiana, claiming that Lilly’s PNT2002 infringes on their U.S. Patent No. 10,624,970. Because PNT2002 describes similar conjugates and methods to treat the same kind of cancer (prostate) that Pluvicto is designed to treat, Novartis alleges direct competition with their product.
Lilly and the other defendants have requested the Court dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it is not in direct competition, as PNT2002 is not yet ready for the market and may not even receive regulatory approval by June 2025.
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 244 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Registration Number | Wordmark |
| 7518951 | SOUTHERN INDIANA |
| 7519940 | ANDERSON PREPARATORY ACADEMY JETS |
| 7519942 | ANDERSON PREPARATORY ACADEMY 2008 |
| 7532204 | INDIANA FARMERS’ DAIRY BAR SINCE 1941 |
| 7534427 | ENVIRON |
| 7525981 | PILLARS OF TRANSFORMATION |
Plaintiff William Miller filed suit against Empire News, LLC (Defendant) for the unauthorized use of a copyrighted photograph depicting migrants being displaced from the Watson Hotel. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §1202(b)).
The Plaintiff asserts exclusive rights to the photograph in question, which he reports was first published on January 30, 2023, and later registered by the U.S. Copyright Office on April 1, 2023. Miller claims that the Defendant displayed this image on its website on January 30, 2023, without the proper permission or licensing, thereby violating copyright law.
Empire, LLC, is alleged to have profited from the unauthorized display, thus undermining the Plaintiff’s market for the photograph. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to implement adequate policies to verify copyright ownership, which indicates negligence in ensuring compliance with copyright law.
