Articles Posted in Intellectual Property Law

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Keith F. Bell, Ph.D. of Texas filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Lloy Ball, of Angola, Indiana, and USA Volleyball of Colorado Springs, Colorado infringed his rights in Copyright Registration Number TX-0002-6726-44 titled “Winning Isn’t Normal”KeithBell-BlogPhoto-192x300 (the “Infringed Work”) and his rights in Trademark Registration Number 4630749. Plaintiff is seeking judgment awarding damages, actual damages, profits, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, pre-judgement, and post judgment interest.

The Infringed Work was first published in 1982 and registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1989. Dr. Bell continues to offer for sale and market his book and derivative works such as posters and t-shirts with a specific passage known as the “WIN Passage”. He has offered and continues to offer licenses to those that may wish to publish or utilize the WIN Passage. The word mark “WINNING ISN’T NORMAL” has also been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with Registration No. 4630749 for printed matter.

Dr. Bell alleges that Defendant Ball posted a representation of the WIN Passage on his Twitter account on or about November 12, 2015. This post received at least 51 “retweets” and 201 “likes” from Ball’s over 2,000 followers. Dr. Bell also claims that Defendant USA Volleyball posted a representation of the WIN Passage on their Twitter account on or about November 20, 2015 that included a “retweet” of the post by Defendant Ball. This post received at least 30 “retweets” and over 7,000 “likes” from USA Volleyball’s over 123,000 followers. Cease and desist letters were sent to Ball and USA Volleyball on July 15, 2016 and April 21, 2017, respectively. Both Defendants removed their posts shortly after the letter was sent to Ball, automatically removing all retweets of the post. While the Defendants have acknowledged liability to the Plaintiff, they have not agreed to enter into a settlement agreement to protect the Plaintiff’s rights and compensate him for his injuries, leading to this suit for both copyright and trademark infringement.

Continue reading

Bell-v-Association-BlogPhoto-300x128Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, The Association for Behavior Analysis, Inc., infringed his rights to the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any other relief as is just and proper.

Bell has sued many in Indiana federal courts asserting copyright infringement on his own behalf. See:

In this case, Defendant created a website for their business to promote an Indianapolis convention [http://hoosieraba.com/category/Indianapolis]. Plaintiff alleges Defendant published the Indianapolis Photo on that site without his permission. Bell has fully controlled his photograph from 2000 and registered it with the US Copyright Office in 2011. He discovered this alleged infringement of his photo in May 2018 with the use dating back to 2014. The Plaintiff not only alleges copyright infringement, but also vicarious liability for each copy of his photograph downloaded by third-parties from the Defendant’s website.

Continue reading

Bell-v-Fischer-BlogPhoto-300x144Indianapolis, Indiana –Plaintiff and Attorney, Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Harold Fischer, infringed his rights to the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

Bell is notorious for filing many lawsuits on his own behalf asserting copyright infringement in Indiana federal courts. He has published or licensed the Indianapolis Photo in compliance with copyright laws since March 2000. The photograph was first published online on August 29, 2000 by Bell on his Web shots account. Almost eleven years later, Bell registered the photograph with the US Copyright Office.

Defendant, Fischer, created a website for his Indianapolis-based business at http://pooltablemoving.com/. It is alleged that he committed copyright infringement by including the Indianapolis Photo on his website from 2016 to 2018 without properly licensing from Bell. The Plaintiff also claims that Fischer is vicariously liable for each downloaded copy of the Indianapolis Photo by any third-party user from the business website.

Continue reading

Eli Lilly & Company and its subsidiary, Elanco US Inc., both of Greenfield, Indiana, filed suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Arla Foods, Inc. USA of Denmark, and Arla Foods Production LLC a Delaware Corporation used false advertising and unfair businessLilly-v-Arla-BlogPhoto-233x300 practices in regards to Arla brand cheeses.

In 2017, Arla Foods launched a $30 million advertising campaign focused on expanding its cheese sales in the U.S. These advertisements included ads featuring a seven-year-old girl describing recombinant bovine somatotropin (“rbST”), an artificial growth hormone used to treat cows, as a type of monster. The ads implied that milk from cows that were treated with rbST was unwholesome and unnatural, therefore not good for your family.

Elanco makes the only FDA-approved rbST supplement, marketed under the name Posilac®. After the Arla campaign launched, Elanco filed suit alleging that Arla was in violation of the Lanham Act and simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction with supporting copies of ads, evidence that a major cheese distributor decreased its purchasing of rbST in response to the ad campaign, and scientific literature pertaining to rbST’s safety. The district judge issued the requested injunction and later modified the injunction to cure technical deficiencies.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana  – Stone Basket Innovations, LLC of Austin, Texas, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas which was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Cook Medical, LLC of Bloomington, Indiana, infringed Patent No. 6,551,327 (“‘327 Patent”), Endoscopic Stone Extraction Device with Improved Basket, issued by the US Patent Office.Stonebasket-BlogPhoto-300x204

The initial Complaint for this case was filed on April 8, 2015. Defendant served their invalidity contentions in October 2015 and deposed the ‘327 patent’s inventor in January of 2016. During the deposition, the inventor stated in regards to an addition to overcome an examiner’s rejection, “I realize there is nothing novel about it.” Defendant then petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review (IPR) of all the claims. The District Court case was stayed pending the outcome of the petition for an IPR based off a joint motion.

After the IPR was instituted in September 2016, Plaintiff offered to license the ‘327 patent to Defendant for $150,000.00. Negotiations fell through and the settlement did not occur. Plaintiff then filed a motion requesting an adverse judgment in the IPR proceeding in December 2016 and moved to dismiss the District Court case with prejudice, both of which were granted.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney for Plaintiff, Linda Matlow of Chicago, Illinois filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Rodgers Broadcasting Corp. of Richmond, Indiana, infringed its rights to the “Parr Photo” registered on December 7, 2011 with the U.S. Copyright Office, Registration Number VAu 1-085-861. Plaintiff is seeking actual and/or statutory damages, costs, attorney’s fees, an injunction, and any other relief as is just and proper.

Plaintiff’s Attorney, Bell, has filed many lawsuits on his own behalf asserting copyright infringement in Indiana federal courts. Bell has been unsuccessful as a plaintiff in many of his own infringement cases and has been ordered to pay the Defendant’s fees as a result. See:

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff took the photograph in question in the 1980’s and proceeded to register the photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2011. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant infringed on her copyright when its subsidiary KMIX 106.9 published the photograph on their Twitter account in 2017.

Continue reading

Venice-BlogPhoto-208x300Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Venice, P.I. had filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that many anonymous Defendants, as listed below, infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright:

Continue reading

Phocatox-BlogPhoto-300x81Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Phocatox Technologies, LLC of Carmel, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Jerry D. Wiersig of Foley, Alabama, Todd M. Hoffman of Edmond, Oklahoma, BioClean Remediation, LLC of Foley, Alabama, and BioClean Remediation, LLC of Edmond Oklahoma infringed the rights in United States Trademark Registration No. 3,351,509 for “BioSweep”.  Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and judgment, including statutory damages and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff operates under the business name “BioSweep” and manufactures and licenses odor removal and decontamination equipment. The name “BioSweep” is trademarked by the Plaintiff under registration No. 3,351,509.

Continue reading

New Jersey – In February of 2005, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Howmedica Osteonics Corp., of Mahwah, New Jersey filed suit in the District Court of New Jersey alleging that Defendants, Zimmer, Inc. of Warsaw, Indiana, Centerpulse Orthopedics, Inc. of Austin, Texas, and Smith & Nephew, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee infringed itsZimmer-BlogPhoto-300x179 rights in United States Patent No. 6,174,934 (“the ‘934 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, United States Patent No. 6,372,814 (“the ‘814 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, United States Patent No. 6,664,308 (“the 308 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, and United States Patent No. 6,818,020 (“the ‘020 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”.  Plaintiff sought judgment for damages including interest and costs, treble damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff is a corporation that develops, manufactures, and distributes orthopedic products, generally used in hip and knee procedures and other bone replacement procedures. Defendant is a corporation based in Warsaw, Indiana, that also focuses on products for joint and extremity replacements.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barrington Music Products, Inc. of Niles, Michigan filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Music & Arts Centers of Bel Air, Maryland, Guitar Center Stores, Inc. of Westlake Village, and Eastman Music Company of Pomona, California infringed the rights in Trademark Registration Numbers 3,831,402 and 3,831,403.  Plaintiff sought actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and any other relief.

Barrington-BlogPhoto-4-1024x392

Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation that sells musical instruments across the country and world. Defendants are various musical instrument shops that sell similar types of items to those that Plaintiff sells. Continue reading

Contact Information