Indianapolis, Indiana –According to the Complaint, Larry G. Philpot (“Philpot”), the Plaintiff, is a well-known photographer of musicians. Philpot claims to have taken a photo of a well-known musician, Kid Rock, during one of Kid Rock’s concerts. After taking the photo, Philpot apparently applied for and obtained U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 1-182-727  for the photo (the “Registered Photo”).

Philbot-Photo-JPeg

Philpot claims COTR, LLC d/b/a Chicks on the Right of Indianapolis (“COTR”) copied and published the Registered Photo on its website. While Philpot claims to have discovered the alleged infringement on or after July 26, 2017, the post was apparently removed at some point after December 21, 2017. However, per the Complaint, Philpot’s counsel sent a formal infringement notice to COTR on July 6, 2020, prior to the filing of the Complaint. Philpot is seeking damages for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 505.

Continue reading

Northern District of Indiana –Apparently, EZ Tankless, Inc. (“EZ Tankless”), the Plaintiff, sells water heaters throughout the world. EZ Tankless also claims to own the trademark for EZ TANKLESS under U.S. Registration No. 5,502,206 (the “Registered Mark”), which has been used in connection with its tankless water heaters since July 2009. According to the Complaint, Noritz America Corporation (“Noritz”), the Defendant, “is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of gas-fired baths and hot water heaters.”

Photos-1024x432

EZ Tankless claims Noritz adopted a confusingly similar mark to the Registered Mark and has been using that mark in connection with Noritz’s EZ Series tankless water heaters since April 2017. Per the Complaint, Noritz applied for and was granted registration for its trademark EZ SERIES under U.S. Registration No. 5,731,024 in connection, in relevant part, with tankless water heaters. Noritz was also apparently granted a trademark registration for EZTR under U.S. Registration No. 4,800,941 with a date of first use on October 31, 2014.

According to the Complaint, EZ Tankless contacted Noritz on multiple occasions through counsel to request Noritz cease use of the EZ related marks. However, Noritz apparently continued to use the marks. Therefore, EZ Tankless is seeking damages for trademark infringement pursuant to the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. Additionally, EZ Tankless is seeking to cancel both the EZ SERIES and EZTR marks as it contends they were granted registration based on false representations.

Continue reading

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.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 212 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September 2020, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No. Title
1 D0897285 Charger
2 D0897245 Flex receiver hitch
3 10,791,383 Draft beer supply chain systems and methods
4 10,790,766 Dynamic energy harvesting and variable harvesting force system
5 10,790,441 Spin-transfer-torque synthetic anti-ferromagnetic switching device

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  218 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Reg. Number Word Mark
6164786 EMPOWER THE WORLD. ONE MIND AT A TIME
6171463 PIGTEK
6169511
6171692 UNITED STATES WRESTLING ASSOCIATION
6169018 LINCOLN FINANCIAL FIELD

 

Continue reading

 

South Bend, IndianaFloat-On Corporation (“Float-On”), the Plaintiff, claims to sell unique, high quality immersible boat trailers throughout the United States and in several other countries. According to the Complaint, Float-On has used the registered and incontestable mark FLOAT-ON® (the “Registered Mark”), covered by U.S. Reg. No. 885,333, to identify its boat trailers for over fifty years. Float-On further claims it has expended large amounts of money in advertising its products bearing the Registered Mark.

 

https://www.iniplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/366/2020/10/New.Photo_-1.png

Per the Complaint, Paul’s Marine, Inc. d/b/a PMI Marine Distributors and Paul E. Myers, Jr., the Defendants, copied the Registered Mark and have adopted a confusingly similar mark for boat trailers – FLOTE-ON. Float-On claims the Defendants intentional and willful selling of their products with the alleged infringing mark has caused actual consumer confusion in the marketplace. Float-On is seeking damages for federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and counterfeiting pursuant to the Lanham Act among several common law claims.

 

 

Continue reading

 

Indianapolis, Indiana – Great Grizzly, Inc. (“Grizzly”), Plaintiff, claims to have sold and imported fireworks in Indiana for over 50 years. In addition, Grizzly claims to have several federal trademarks including the one at issue in this case assigned Registration No. 2,329,220 for “PREDATOR” (the “Registered Mark”).

https://www.iniplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/366/2020/10/Great.Grizzly.Blog_.Photo_.png

Grizzly alleges the Defendants, Winco Fireworks, Inc. and Winco Fireworks International, LLC (the “Winco Defendants”) offer and sell fireworks throughout the United States. According to the Complaint, the Winco Defendants have sold fireworks that infringe the Registered Mark and have failed to desist their infringement after being informed of the Registered Mark. Therefore, Grizzly is seeking damages for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq. and state common law. Grizzly is also claiming the Winco Defendants violated Indiana Code § 24-5-0.5-3(b)(1) for deceptive consumer practices and committed tortious interference with a business relationship under the common law.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) filed suit on November 13, 2019 in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant SensorRx seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not misappropriated trade secrets among other things. SensorRx in turn, on November 22, 2019 filed a lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. SensorRx then filed a Motion to Dismiss or to Transfer Lilly’s declaratory action suit to North Carolina.

Photo-Blog-1

 

The Southern District found Lilly’s declaratory action was an “improper anticipatory filing” as there was a clear threat of litigation prior to the filing of the declaratory action. As such, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the declaratory judgment action. The Court further found that the balance of factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) weighed in favor of transferring the action to the Western District of North Carolina where SensorRx filed its suit. Therefore, SensorRx’s Motion to Transfer was granted and the case was transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Vincent Ambrosetti (“Ambrosetti”), the Plaintiff, is apparently the author and creator of the musicalAmbrosetti-BlogPhoto composition “Emmanuel.” According to the Complaint, the composition was first published in a songbook in 1980. However, Ambrosetti did not receive U.S. Copyright Registration No. PA 2-231-246 for “Emmanuel” until March 4, 2020.

Ambrosetti claims Defendant, Bernadette Farrell (“Farrell”), copied and infringed upon his work when she composed “Christ Be Our Light” in 1993. Further, Ambrosetti claims, Defendant, Oregon Catholic Press (“OCP”), obtained the rights to sell, market, distribute, and license “Christ Be Our Light” from Farrell. Because Farrell and OCP have apparently been distributing and publicly performing the allegedly infringing “Christ Be Our Light” for many years, and especially within the past three years, Ambrosetti is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504(b) and 505.

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Savanna Campbell (“Campbell”), the Plaintiff, claims to have taken a photograph inside a Walmart of the child car seat section (the “Photograph”). Campbell apparently registered the Photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office and given Copyright Registration No. VA 2-204-282.

BlogPhoto-1

 

According to the Complaint, Defendant Gray Television (“Gray”) used the Photograph on a television program and then on its website in an article entitled “Fact Check: Does Michigan’s stay-at-home order ban purchase of child safety seats?”. Campbell claims Gray did not have a license, her permission, or consent to use the Photograph in its television program or on its website. Therefore, Campbell is seeking damages for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 505. Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana3M Company (“3M”) claims there has been an increase in wrongdoers seeking to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic by using scams including those to price-gouge and offer3M-Blogphoto-use-300x106 fake sales of 3M-brand N95 respirators. 3M claims Defendants, Zachary Puznak, Zenger LLC d/b/a ZeroAqua, and John Does 1-10 offered Indiana an opportunity to purchase 3M N95 masks at approximately $2.82 each, which is more than double 3M’s price.

There were numerous allegedly false communications from the Defendants to various representatives of the State of Indiana, including Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb’s Chief of Staff and the Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, regarding the sale of 3M-brand N95 respirators. When 3M became aware of the alleged price gouging and false communications, it filed this suit claiming the Defendants infringed its rights in United States Trademark Reg. No. 3,398,329 (the “‘329 Registration”) and Registration No. 2,793,534 (the “‘534 Registration”). 3M is further seeking damages for unfair competition, false endorsement, false association, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and false advertising. Finally, 3M filed multiple claims pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act for deception, conversion, and theft.

Continue reading

Contact Information