INSD News

February 28, 2025

Patent Battle Winds Up: Inpres, Inc. and TWM IP LLC Sue Alltrista Plastics LLC for Alleged Infringement of Screw-Based Dispenser Patent

Plaintiffs 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.

February 24, 2025

Who’s Got The Case? Unfair Competition Suit Between Catalyst Medium Four Inc. (Smartish) and Scooch, LLC

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 product 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.

February 21, 2025

RestoPros Files Lawsuit for Trademark Infringement and Breach of Agreement in Restoration and Remediation Dispute.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

RestoPros 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.

February 17, 2025

Photojournalist, Christopher Sadowski Focuses New Lawsuit On Pest Control Company for Alleged Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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’s 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.

February 3, 2025

Valve Wars: Indiana Rivals Banjo and Green Leaf Clash Over Trademarks, Domains, and Market Power

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana-based companies, Banjo Corporation and Green Leaf, Inc., are again in litigation over their crossing business of manufacturing and selling valves and pipe fittings. The original complaint brought forth by Banjo, still pending, was for trademark infringement with Green Leaf’s use of the color yellow on their liquid handling valves. Now Green Leaf is suing Banjo for the use of domain names and trademarks. According to the complaint, Green Leaf has consistently used its registered United States federal trademarks, Green Leaf® and TerreMax®, to identify its products in commerce. Green Leaf’s various word marks and a design mark are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office under Nos. 2,642,074, 6,901,382 and 2,642,068.

Green Leaf claims that committed trademark infringement and cyberpiracy by registering several domain names identical or confusingly similar to Green Leaf’s trademarks, including but not limited to the domain names greenleafvalve.com and terremaxvalve.com. It is alleged that these domain names were registered in 2019 by Banjo for the purpose of redirecting consumers to Banjo’s website. Green Leaf insists that Banjo acted in bad faith, attempting to ride on the coattails of good will established by Green Leaf® and TerreMax®.

The complaint also alleges that Banjo renewed these domain names in 2024, continuing to possess the domain names and continuing to divert consumers through them until November of that year. Once the diversion ceased, Green Leaf moved to amend an existing lawsuit with a cyberpiracy counterclaim. The motion was denied, but the court indicated it could bring the claim in a separate action, which it has now done.

January 24, 2025

Eric Emanuel’s EE Holding Group Takes Legal Action Over Counterfeit Scandal, Targeting Social Media Reseller

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Carmel, Indiana – EE Holding Group LLC has filed a lawsuit against PDGROWTH LLC and Patrick D. Garton. The claims include trademark counterfeiting, infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under both federal and common law.

Led by designer Eric Emanuel, the plaintiff asserts ownership of trademarks such as ERIC EMANUEL and the EE logo: . These trademarks have been in use since 2014 and are associated with high-quality sportswear, particularly the signature EE mesh shorts.

Defendant Garton, who operates under the Instagram handle “pd.resells,” is accused of selling counterfeit goods that bear the plaintiff’s trademarks. These goods, sourced from China, are marketed as indistinguishable replicas. Garton sells these products through social media, the website https://thesupplyr.com/, and other platforms, allegedly profiting significantly from these sales. The plaintiff claims Garton not only sells counterfeit items but also teaches others how to profit from similar activities.

January 6, 2025

Delta Faucet Fights Back: Lawsuit Against Amazon Storefront Targets Unauthorized Sales, Trademark Violations and Brand Damage

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Delta Faucet Company, a prominent manufacturer of kitchen and bathroom fixtures, alleges that Justin and Andrew Bundrick engaged in unauthorized sales of Delta-branded products via Amazon storefronts “SummitMerch” (previously “BunjiSolutions”) and “A.B.Sales”. The company claims these products failed to meet their quality standards and did not include the official warranty, thereby violating trademark laws under the Lanham Act and constituting unfair competition.

Delta contends that the defendants’ sales of defective or subpar goods resulted in negative reviews, consumer confusion, and damage to Delta’s reputation. Despite receiving cease-and-desist letters, the defendants reportedly continued to sell non-genuine products. Test purchases indicated improper packaging and the absence of Delta’s warranty.

Delta argues that these unauthorized sales amount to trademark infringement and unfair competition, as the products differ significantly from authentic Delta items. The company is seeking injunctive relief, asserting that these sales harm its brand value and erode consumer trust.

December 30, 2024

Dr. Keith Bell Sues Bartholomew School District and Coach for Alleged Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Author, Dr. Keith F. Bell (“Plaintiff”), has filed another copyright infringement suit in Indiana (see past suit), this time against Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation (“Bartholomew”) and Timothy Bless (“Bless”), again claiming infringement of his intellectual property. Dr. Bell wrote the book Winning Isn’t Normal in 1981, and the key passage titled “Winning Isn’t Normal” (WIN) is central to the book. Dr. Bell holds the copyrights for both the book and WIN, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. He has invested significant effort in promoting his work, which is sold through his websites and various products like posters and t-shirts.

Dr. Bell alleges that Bless, as an employee of Bartholomew and a coach at Columbus North High School, used his copyrighted material without permission by posting a representation of the WIN chapter on social media in March 2022. Dr. Bell claims this act violated his exclusive rights, including reproduction, distribution, and public display of his intellectual property. He asserts that Bartholomew was aware of the infringement and failed to prevent it, benefiting from the activities linked to Bless’s posts. Additionally, Dr. Bell accuses the defendants of removing copyright management information from his work, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Dr. Bell further states that Bartholomew and Bless had previously entered into a settlement agreement in 2020, where they agreed to cease using WIN without proper authorization. He claims that the defendants’ actions in 2022 breached that agreement. As a result, Dr. Bell seeks injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and damages up to $150,000 per infringed work.

December 27, 2024

Plaintiff Illustrator Files Fresh Lawsuit Against Amazon KDP/Jeff Bezos Over Unauthorized Book Covers

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Plainfield, Indiana – Allen Lee Asher-Butler has filed a copyright infringement suit against Amazon KDP and Jeff Bezos, claiming they are committing copyright infringement regarding four books that he designed and illustrated the covers for. According to Asher, these books, authored by William “Will” Wills, have been sold by Amazon since 2009 without his authorization. Despite submitting a copyright infringement claim to Amazon, Asher asserts that the books have continued to be available in both Kindle and paperback formats.

This is not the first time Asher has pursued legal action against Amazon regarding this dispute. He previously filed a nearly identical lawsuit (see previous blog post), but the court dismissed his case due to procedural issues. Asher filed the original lawsuit in November 2020, but from the outset, he faced difficulties. He filed motions requesting assistance with serving the Defendants, which were both denied in 2021. The court explained that it could not provide service assistance because Asher was not proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning he did not qualify for free legal services. The court also ordered Asher to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed due to his failure to prosecute the claims.

In January 2022, the court ultimately dismissed Asher’s case without prejudice, stating that his summons did not meet legal requirements and that he had missed the deadline to serve the Defendants. Asher responded by filing a handwritten summons, but this was not sufficient to address the deficiencies in his filing. The court emphasized that Asher had been given multiple opportunities to remedy these issues but failed to do so.

December 23, 2024

BCW Takes a Stand Against Ultra Pro’s Trademark Infringement Claims in Card Protection Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

BCW Diversified, Inc. (BCW) has filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Ultra PRO International, LLC (Ultra Pro) seeking a court declaration that BCW’s conduct does not infringe, dilute, or constitute unfair competition regarding Ultra Pro’s alleged trademarks for plastic trading card holders. Specifically, BCW contests Ultra Pro’s claims over marks such as TOPLOADER, PENNY SLEEVES, PRO-BINDER, MINI SNAP, CHROMAFUSION TECHNOLOGY, and DECK VAULT, which BCW argues are either invalid or unprotectable.

The case originates from Ultra Pro’s demands for BCW to stop using these terms, claiming they infringe upon its trademarks. BCW denies any wrongdoing, maintaining that the terms in question are generic, non-infringing, and commonly used in the industry for specific types of card protectors. BCW claims their product offerings, which include top loaders, penny sleeves, mini snaps, and other protective trading card items, have been in use for over thirty years and are not intended to serve as trademarks. BCW emphasizes that these terms are used descriptively and are not likely to confuse consumers regarding the source of the products.

BCW’s position is that Ultra Pro’s claims lack legal foundation. For example, BCW argues that Ultra Pro’s registration of marks such as TOPLOADER and PENNY SLEEVES should not be considered valid as they are generic terms that have been in common use long before Ultra Pro’s registration. Additionally, BCW alleges that Ultra Pro has failed to prove that its marks are famous enough to support a claim of trademark dilution under the Lanham Act. BCW also challenges Ultra Pro’s attempt to enforce exclusive rights in phrases like “CHROMAFUSION TECHNOLOGY,” arguing that this term is merely descriptive of a process and not a distinctive trademark.