Articles Posted in Intellectual Property Law

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Kimball International, Inc. of Jasper, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of IndianaBlogPhoto-1 alleging that Defendant, Jasper Seating Company, Inc. d/b/a Community of Jasper, Indiana infringed its rights on the Indiana State Trademark Registration No. 2017-0052 for the mark “JEWEL.”  Plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages, lost profits, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief the Court seems just.

Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation that manufactures furniture for offices, schools, healthcare facilities and hotels. According to the complaint, since August 2015 the Plaintiff has manufactured a line of chairs under the “JEWEL” trademark. Plaintiff has sold the chairs across the country and registered the trademark with the Indiana Secretary of State.

Continue reading

blogphotoIndianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Impact Networking, LLC, of Hammond, and Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Impact Solutions, LLC, of Fishers, Indiana infringed its rights on the United States Trademark registration numbers 2425077 and 2428340. Plaintiff is seeking judgment against Impact Solutions, damages, attorney fees, and costs.

Plaintiff has been in business since 1999, offering IT services. Plaintiff registered two trademarks for its brand, one protecting the word mark “Impact Networking,” and one protecting the company’s logo, which includes the company’s name. According to the complaint, Defendant is also an IT services provider, operating in the same geographic location. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s similar name causes consumer confusion and suggests an affiliation between the two companies. Although Plaintiff’s principal place of business is in Illinois, they have offices in Hammond, Indiana and Indianapolis, Indiana, and do business throughout Indiana. According to the complaint, the two companies are direct competitors in the same geographic area.

Continue reading

Lafayette, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, The Trustees of Purdue University of Lafayette, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Omron Corporation and Omron Healthcare Company, Limited of Japan infringed its rights inBlogPhoto-4-300x170 United States Patent No. 7,014,611 B1 (“the 611 Patent”) for “Oscillometric Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitor”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, compensatory damages, supplemental damages and interest, and such other and further relief and all remedies available at law.

The ‘611 patent describes a small blood pressure monitor to be worn around one’s wrist or other limb. The patented item includes the monitor and a pump to inflate the cuff, among other details. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been infringing the patent by offering for sale numerous infringing blood pressure monitors that Plaintiff alleges “embody the apparatuses and practice the methods covered by one or more claims of the ’611 patent.”

Continue reading

Evansville, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, SCLC, Inc. of Evansville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Marie Kettering of Trenton, New Jersey, and Lanny Tyndall of Enfield, Gansu, Canada, infringed the rights of SCLC.  Plaintiff is seblogphoto-1eking a nationwide injunction, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff owns the rights to the “Shoe Carnival” trademark, and owns and operates shoecarnival.com. The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate shoe sale websites that infringe upon the trade dress of the Shoe Carnival website, and infringe upon the Shoe Carnival trademark by displaying the registered mark on the websites. Specifically, the Defendants’ websites mimic the “look and feel” of Shoe Carnival’s website, including the layouts, placement of photos, borders, frames, colors, and overall impression. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the offending websites used the “Shoe Carnival” registered mark without permission in an effort to generate sales, which Plaintiff claims has caused consumer confusion.

Practice Tip: Although the Plaintiff alleges personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in the complaint, they do not allege any specific facts, such as infringing sales, which occurred in Indiana. This may cause issues for the Plaintiff in trying to secure personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. In a similar case in 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that an out-of-state business accused of trademark infringement did not have sufficient contacts, arising out of the accused activity, with Indiana to subject it to personal jurisdiction in the state.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, AM General LLC, of South Bend, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of IndianaBlogPhoto-300x110 alleging that Defendants, Activision Blizzard, Inc., and Activision Publishing, Inc., both of Santa Monica, California and Major League Gaming Corp., of New York, New York; infringed its rights for the Trademark Registrations of HUMVEE and HMMWV and the trade dress of its HUMVEE brand vehicles. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment and post judgment interest.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s series of Call of Duty videogames have consistently infringed by incorporating and allowing players to control vehicles in-game that, allegedly, infringe on Plaintiff’s real-life protected marks. In the complaint, Plaintiff points to various in-game levels that require the player to control a vehicle that allegedly copies the registered trade dress elements, and other moments in the game where the player sees or interacts with vehicles resembling Humvees. Plaintiff also notes in-game dialogue and marks written on the vehicles that mention “Humvee” specifically.

Continue reading

2016-03-17-blogphotoIndianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Actavis LLC of Parsippany, New Jersey; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA of North Wales, Pennsylvania; and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. of Petach Tikva, Israel infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 patent”) for “Antifolate Combination Therapies”. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and damages including costs and attorneys’ fees.

Eli Lilly and Teva have been involved in numerous patent infringement lawsuits against each other in the past. In April, Eli Lilly sued Teva on a claim of patent infringement of the same drug involved in this case, Alimta. This new complaint is based on a filing by Defendant with the FDA “seeking approval to manufacture and sell its Pemetrexed Injection Concentrate.”

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana –Plaintiff, Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Anderson Schulle of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed his rights inblogphoto-300x105 the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Bell seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.

In October, Bell filed suit against a private equity firm from Carmel, Indiana for publishing the photo on their website.

The lawsuit is the latest in a long string of lawsuits alleging infringement of a copyrighted photo of the Indianapolis skyline. See:

According to the complaint, in 2000, Plaintiff took a photograph of the downtown Indianapolis skyline from St. Clair Avenue, overlooking the downtown canal. Plaintiff registered the copyright in 2011 and has used the photograph in business and advertising materials since then. The complaint alleges that in December 2014, Defendant published the photo on his real estate business’ website without authorization or conferring credit, and claimed to own the copyright to the photo himself.

Continue reading

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has opened for comments and suggestions on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards Standard Protective Order.  The new order went into effect in June of 2016.  Submit comments or suggestions on the Standard Protective Order to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards website.2017-11-16-BlogPhoto-300x49

The USPTO is considering changes to the Standard Protective Order, which is used to protect confidential information that is disclosed during the course of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding. The standard order is modifiable on a case-by-case basis by order of the Board or agreement of the parties involved. It provides a number of standard terms to bind parties and witnesses and prevent disclosure of confidential information they may have learned.

In June 2016 the Standard Protective Order was updated to its current form. Changes made at the time included making the order automatically imposed in Board proceedings, and recommending the parties execute a binding agreement.

2017-11-10-BlogPhoto1-300x241Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney for Plaintiff, Thor Industries, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, The RV Factory, LLC, also of Elkhart, Indiana infringed on the U.S. Patent Nos. 7,575,251, titled Travel Trailer Having Improved Turning Radius (the ‘251 patent), and 7,938,427, titled Recreational Vehicle Chassis (the ‘427 patent). Plaintiff is seeking judgment in favor of Thor Industries, Inc., damages, and all infringing products be recalled.

Plaintiff is the owner of the patents, which deal with the design and functionality of travel trailers. Specifically, the ‘251 patent deals with an RV chassis having certain types of angled front corners, as opposed to squared corners. The ‘427 patent covers a type of chassis with a curved or bowed front end,2017-11-10-BlogPhoto2-300x240 instead of a flat or straight front.

According to the complaint, Defendant has been manufacturing and selling RVs with chasses containing the patented design elements. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s RV model “Luxe Luxury Fifth Wheel” infringes on the ‘251 patent. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant’s “Luxe Elite,” “Luxe Gold,” and “Weekend Warrior” models infringe the ‘427 patent by using a curved forward surface.

Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has induced and contributed to infringement by third parties who have bought and used the allegedly infringing RVs.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Shenzhen Paiaudio Electronics Co., Ltd of Guangdong, 2017-11-08-BlogPhoto-224x300China infringed on the U.S. Patent No. D603,844 (the ‘844 patent), titled “Headphone,” and violated Klipsch headphones’ trade dress. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, a permanent injunction, lost profits, damages, pre-judgement and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and all relief just and proper.

Plaintiff Klipsch is an Indianapolis-based audio company that produces headphones, earphones, and speakers for home and commercial use. China-based Defendant Paiaudio specializes in producing high-end earphones. The subject of this litigation is a type of small earphone patented by Klipsch, specifically their “X12i” model. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “π 3.14 Audio” model is virtually identical to the X12i, infringes on the patent, and violates the Lanham Act via trade dress confusion.

Continue reading

Contact Information