Articles Posted in Declaratory Judgments

Pic-300x113Hoagland, Indiana – A legal filing initiated by Davaus, LLC against S7 IP Holdings, LLC and Shawn Gengerke is a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. According to the complaint, Davaus seeks legal affirmation that their product, the Kernel Keeper™, does not infringe, is not covered by, and renders invalid the United States Patent No. 9,961,830 claimed by S7, specifically related to S7’s product called the “Harvest Sweep.” S7 alleged that the Kernel Keeper™ infringed on their patent and demanded Davaus cease its production and sale. Davaus states that they responded by explaining how their product differs from the patented claims, but S7 rejected this explanation and reiterated the demand to stop production.

Davaus contends that their product does not infringe upon S7’s patent and requests the court to rule that their product does not violate the patent, and that the patent itself is invalid and unenforceable. This legal action aims to prevent legal repercussions against Davaus based on the patent claimed by S7.

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Holly A. Brady and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins, in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00398-HAB-SLC.

BlogPhotosCombined

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff, Disintermediation Services, Inc. (DSI) filed suit against Plaintiff, Perq Software, LLC for Patent Infringement.

DSI is a company that develops and sells software that supports omnichannel communications. DSI built implementations of its products on both Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. Since launching their website in 2011, Disintermediation has handled over one million chat messages.

The Defendant, Perq Software, LLC (“Perq”), according to their website, was founded in 2008 by Andy Medley and Scott Hill, two Harvard Business School alumni set out to untangle a big, hairy problem with multifamily. The PERQ platform combines AI leasing assistant automation with powerful website conversion tools.

Continue reading

MaddenBlogPhoto-300x124Evansville, Indiana – The Plaintiff, MaddenCo, Inc.  (“MaddenCo”) filed suit against former employees, James Reed (“Reed”) and Dru Darby (“Darby”) along with their new employer HG Autotech LLC (“HG Autotech”) for Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Tortious Interference, Copyright Infringement, False Advertising, False Representations, False Designations of Origin, Reverse Passing Off and Unfair Competition.

Per Plaintiff’s website, MaddenCo is a privately held family business and has been for over 40 years. They develop and support integrated software systems for tire dealers and truck stop service centers. MaddenCo provides systems for retail, wholesale, commercial and retreading operations for independent tire dealers, and retail and commercial solutions for service centers for truck stops, with full integration to their own accounts payable and general ledger solutions. MaddenCo owns Copyright Registration Number TX0009171151 entitled “The Tire Dealer System” with an effective registration date of August 26, 2022.

Continue reading

KilroysLogo-300x300Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff, Elijah Schwartz (“Schwartz”) filed suit against his former Employer and Defendants, Kilroy’s North America LLC, Kilroy’s Sports, LLC, and Kilroy’s on Kirkwood, LLC (“Kilroy’s”) for Violation of the Wage Payment Act, Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, Fraud, Declaratory Judgment of Copyright Ownership, and Copyright Infringement.

According to the Complaint, Schwartz began working for Kilroy’s as a server and bartender in August of 2021.  He later was offered the position of AV Intern where his duties included services related to Defendants’ social media accounts and digital presence, assistance with their relationship with Barstool Sports, promotion of events, the creation of marketing and advertising content, which included the production, filming, and editing of video and digital content for the Defendants.

Continue reading

BlogPhoto-1Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently Indianapolis Bouldering LLC, the Plaintiff, provides bouldering facilities as part of its fitness facility. According to the Complaint, Indianapolis Bouldering intends on opening a 52,000 square foot fitness facility (“North Mass Boulder”) in May 2021 using images of rocks and natural surfaces to create an organic branding aesthetic. The Defendants, BP Holdings Company, LLC, Seattle Bouldering Project, LLC, Minneapolis Bouldering Project, LLC, and Austin Bouldering Project, LLC (“Defendants”), allegedly operate climbing gyms in Washington, Texas, and Minneapolis with colorful and geometric branding.

Indianapolis Bouldering acknowledges in the Complaint that for “a brief period of time in late 2020, one of its members used content from one of Defendant’s websites (the “Website Content”) as a placeholder text during the website design process.” It further claims the Website Content was removed after being publicly available for two weeks and was replaced. The Parties apparently exchanged multiple letters regarding the Website Content and various other intellectual property rights. According to the Complaint, Defendants continued to threaten suit to enforce their purported intellectual property rights.

Therefore, Indianapolis Bouldering is seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the intellectual property interests asserted by Defendants are invalid and/or unenforceable; (2) it is not infringing, has not infringed, and is not liable for infringing any allegedly enforceable intellectual property interest; and (3) non-violation of alleged trade secrets of Defendants.

Continue reading

donna-chandler-800x760-1-300x285-1Kenneth Zweigel, Content & Commerce, Inc., Kevin Detrude, and My K9 Behaves, LLC, the Defendants, filed a Notice of Removal from Hamilton County Superior Court 4 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for a lawsuit originally filed by Show Colors, Inc., Donna Chandler and Derivative Plaintiff My K9 Behaves, LLC, the Plaintiffs. According to the Notice, the Southern District has jurisdiction pursuant to the Copyright Act, Lanham Act, and the Declaratory Relief Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202).

Apparently, the Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges and “seeks relief regarding the proper owner of various copyrights, trademarks, and the derivative works related thereto.” Therefore, the Defendants claim the “action cannot be adjudicated without the interpretation of federal laws of the United States.”

Continue reading

donna-chandler-800x760-1-300x285-1-150x150Indianapolis, Indiana – According to the Complaint, Donna Chandler (“Chandler”), one of the Defendants and owner of Co-Defendant, Show Colors, Inc. (“Show Colors”), is the author of a canine training book called “Good Dog!” Apparently, Chandler along with Plaintiffs, Kevin DeTrude (“DeTrude”) and Content & Commerce, Inc. (“Content” and collectively “Plaintiffs”), are members of nominal defendant, My K9 Behaves LLC (“My K9”). Content is allegedly in the business of website development and marketing and is owned by Keneth Zweigel (“Zweigel”). Per the Complaint, Chandler, DeTrude, and Zweigel began working on an online instruction course based upon two books written by Chandler (the “Online Class”) in January 2016. The parties apparently also discussed converting the text-based course to a video format.

Two videos were allegedly recorded and paid for by DeTrude in 2016 with a script for a third video written around February 2017. It appears Chandler, Content, and DeTrude officially formed their business on April 4, 2017, but the parties did not execute an Operating Agreement for the business until mid-June 2017, which included clauses assigning all common law and registered trademark and copyrights, including Chandler’s books and the publishing rights to My K9 (the “Assigned Rights”). Upon dissolution or the termination of Chandler’s ownership in My K9, the Assigned Rights would allegedly revert back to Chandler. According to the Complaint, shortly after the Operating Agreement was executed, a third video was recorded and paid for by Zweigel.

As My K9 was experiencing apparent success, the company entered into a Publishing Agreement for a third book to be written by Chandler with the rights assigned to My K9. Allegedly due to the length of time spent writing the book, the first Publishing Agreement was revoked, and a Second Publishing Agreement was put in place. The Plaintiffs claim Chandler then began demanding a greater portion of the profits and ultimately decided if the rights to the third book were not in her name only, she simply would not publish the third book. Chandler then apparently informed DeTrude and Content that she was withdrawing her membership in My K9 and demanded they cease and desist using her name or likeness and re-assign the Assigned Rights back to her.

DeTrude and Content are seeking a declaratory judgment of copyright and trademark ownership “including any derivative or original intellectual property created by or on behalf of My K9. Further, to the extent the Plaintiffs own any of the copyrighted works, they allege Chandler and Show Colors have infringed those works by profiting off the sale of the works individually and not for the benefit of My K9. To the extent Plaintiffs own any trademarks, they are similarly claiming trademark infringement. Plaintiffs have also brought derivative and direct claims for breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunities, theft and conversion pursuant to I.C. § 35-43-4-3. Finally, Plaintiffs are claiming breach of contract for Defendants’ alleged breach of the Operating Agreement.

Continue reading

Fort Wayne, Indiana – JetPro Pilots, LLC, the Plaintiff, apparently recruit, staff, and provide pilots, flight attendants, and technicians to its clients for use on their aircrafts. According to the Complaint, Defendants, Jet Pro, Inc. and Keith Kenneally, offer freight brokerage and forwarding services. The Defendants allegedly sent a cease and desist letter to JetPro Pilots claiming JetPro Pilots was violating Defendants’ U.S. Registration No. 3,186,308 (the “Jet Pro, Inc. Mark”). JetPro Pilots claims to have been in business since 2009 with the first allegation relating to confusion arising out of its use of the phrase “Jet Pro” coming from Defendants in July 2020, with no actual consumer confusion in the eleven years of co-existence.

Blog-Photo

Believing this to be a credible threat of immediate litigation, JetPro Pilots filed suit for a declaratory judgment for unenforceability of a trademark and a declaration of non-infringement pursuant to the Trademark Laws of the United States and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. JetPro Pilots asserts in favor of declaratory judgment that the parties’ logos are dissimilar and the parties provide different goods and services making consumer confusion unlikely.

 

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

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

Contact Information