Litigation

December 1, 2023

Court Order in HeathSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc.

Defendants in trademark infringement case, HealthSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc. and Beth Porter have initiated a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, they have requested the case be transferred to the Northern District of California.

The dispute before Indiana Judge Matthew P. Brookman involves the use of the trademark SWEET NOTHINGS. In the midst of the case, Defendant Beth Porter initiated a separate lawsuit in California against HealthSmart, claiming fraud and unfair competition. Defendants argue that the defenses in the Indiana case overlap with Ms. Porter’s claims in the California case, indicating evidence and witness overlap as grounds for the case to be transferred. However, after careful consideration, the Court DENIED the Defendants’ request to transfer the Indiana case to the Northern District of California.

As for the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the judge stated that the issue revolves around whether Defendants’ contacts with Indiana justify personal jurisdiction. Defendants conceded that Sweet Nothings has minimum contacts with Indiana, but the parties disputed the significance of these contacts, the consideration of third-party retailer contacts, and whether exercising jurisdiction aligns with fair play and substantial justice. The Plaintiff argued that Sweet Nothing’s website, offering shipping options to Indiana, actively engaging with Indiana consumers, and facilitating sales through Amazon to Indiana residents, demonstrates purposeful conduct directed towards the Indiana market. Judge Brookman agreed with the Plaintiff and DENIED the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

November 27, 2023

Protecting Intellectual Property: A Legal Fight in the Entertainment Industry

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Las Veg as, NV – Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC is attempting to safeguard their purported, exclusive distribution rights by suing Indianapolis, Indiana Defendants Susana Sanchez and La Casa De Los Mariscos Mexican Grill #2 LLC for the alleged unauthorized publication of a cable television program.

G&G’s argument states that they were granted the exclusive rights to the commercial distribution of the Saul “Canelo” Alvarez v. Caleb Plant Championship Fight Program that was broadcast on Saturday, November 6, 2021. They further argue that because they have the exclusive rights, any commercial establishment wanting to show the fight had to purchase the license to do so, which the Mexican restaurant failed to do. Therefore, G & G has accused the Defendants of willfully intercepting, receiving, and publishing the fight without said authorization.

As a result, the Plaintiff is asking the court to find that Sanchez and La Casa De Los Mariscos Mexican Grill #2 is in violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605, et seq., which prohibits the unauthorized interception, receipt, publication, and use of communications, including satellite television signals, such as the transmission of the Program in question. In addition, G & G is seeking compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, along with costs and attorneys’ fees.

October 20, 2023

Multiple Patents Allegedly Infringed Upon In Suit between Rogue Fitness and Bells of Steel USA, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Columbus, Ohio – Plaintiff Coulter Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Rogue Fitness (“Rogue”) filed suit against Bells of Steel USA Inc., for alleged patent infringement of its fitness products in Bell’s sporting goods stores, including their Indianapolis, Indiana, Bells of Steel USA Showroom.

According to the complaint, Rogue Fitness owns several design and utility patents for fitness equipment, including Patent No. 11,173,337: “Weightlifting Assembly and Weight Rack Including Weightlifting Assembly”, Patent No. 10,226,661: “Weightlifting Rack Assembly and Wall Mount Bracket for a Weightlifting Rack Assembly,” Patent No. D992,063: “Wall Mounted Exercise Rack,” Patent No. D961,020: “Weight Plate,” and Patent No. RE49,513: “Barbell.” Rogue states that all these patented products are listed on the company’s website for the public to view at any time.

In the suit, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has been purposely advertising, marketing, selling, manufacturing, and distributing products that are infringing on Rogue’s lawfully held patents. Rogue specifically identified 8 of the products Bells advertises as infringing upon the Plaintiff’s patents in their design and/or utility. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant relies on “making cheap copies of products and designs created by others and only later dealing with patent infringement.”

September 22, 2023

Dillon Construction Group Files Copyright Infringement Suit Against Andretti Global Construction Team

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hamilton County, Indiana– The Plaintiffs, DCG Indiana, Inc. d/b/a Dillon Construction Group, filed suit against Cardinal XLIII, LLC (Delaware); Motorsport Real Estate Ventures LLC (Delaware); Studio M Architecture and Planning, LLC (Indiana); Gradex, Inc. (Indiana); and Glenmark Construction Co. Inc. (Indiana) in part, for copyright infringement of works of original authorship.

According to the complaint, in early 2022, Andretti Global hired the Plaintiff and the Defendants to design and construct a racing facility in Fishers, IN. The parties then entered into a Design-Build Contract, which included financial terms, budgets, building plans, completion dates, etc. The Plaintiffs also claim that the contract granted Cardinal a limited, irrevocable, and nonexclusive license to use the drawings, specifications, calculations, etc. (Instruments of Service) created by DCG, while also maintaining that DCG was the author and owner of said Instruments of Service, and would, therefore, retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. More importantly, the claim states that the contract specified that should Cardinal not substantially perform its obligations, including payment of any past-due fees to DCG, the copyright license granted to Cardinal would automatically terminate. (Click to read the cited part of the Design-Build Contract.)

According to the Plaintiff, on March 10, 2023, Cardinal notified DCG that it would be terminating the Design-Build Contract. At the time the Plaintiff claims Cardinal still owed them $1,011.462.21, which, according to the terms of the Design-Build Contract, meant the copyright license granted to Cardinal should have ceased. However, the Plaintiff alleges that Cardinal continued to use DCG’s Instruments of Service after the illegal termination of the contract and even after receiving cease-and-desist letters from Plaintiff’s counsel.

March 8, 2023

“As Seen On TV” Corporation Sues Competitor for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana –The Plaintiff, TeleBrands Corporation, filed suit against Plaintiff, Vieneci Garden, Inc. for patent infringement.

TeleBrands Corporation is a leading direct television marketing company and the original creator of the “As Seen On TV” logo and category of the trade. They are a well-known direct-response marketing company that specializes in developing and promoting innovative consumer products. TeleBrands is currently celebrating 30 years of being in business. Its products can be found in over 70 countries. One of its most successful products is the “Pocket Hose,” an expandable garden hose that is designed to be lightweight, durable, and easy to use. TeleBrands holds several patents related to the design and construction of expandable garden hoses, including US10174870 and US10890278 both titled “Expandable and Contractible Garden Hose.”

Vieneci Garden, Inc. is a competing company that also produces and sells expandable garden hoses that is based out of Franklin, Indiana. According to the Indiana Secretary of State Vieneci was created in August of 2022. Their website touts them to be a preferred gardening tools supplier for a number of garden owners and gardeners.

September 30, 2022

Oakley Sues Local Business for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Plaintiff, Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley”), is an American company operating as an independent subsidiary of Luxottica Group S.p.A. Oakley designs, develops and manufactures sports equipment and lifestyle pieces including, sunglasses, sports visors, ski/snowboard googles, watches, apparel, backpacks, shoes, optical frames, and other accessories. Oakley currently holds more than 600 patents for eyewear, materials and performance gear and numerous trademark registrations.

The Defendant, Batter’s Box, LLC (“Batter’s Box”) is an Indiana limited liability company having a principal place of business at 3510 S. Keystone Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana. According to the Complaint, Shawn Lessor and Brandi Pierson are listed as principal owners, officers, managers and directors of Batter’s Box. Their website describes them as a state of art, year round, indoor facility with over 20,000 square feet of training area, and 18 multi-use indoor batting and pitching tunnels. It is also reported that Batter’s Box engages in the sale of sunglasses and related accessories at youth sports tournaments in Indiana, as well as through its own retail sporting goods store.

July 28, 2022

Lafayette Interior Fashions Sues Competitor for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Lafayette, Indiana – The Plaintiff, Lafayette Venetian Blind, Inc., (LVB) conducts business under the business name “Lafayette Interior Fashions” in West Lafayette, Indiana. LVB is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling window treatments, blinds and shades. LVB has a federal trademark registration, with the USPTO, for the word mark GENESIS under Registration No. 3344243 in Class 20 for “window blinds, window shades, and venetian blinds.”

Defendants, Coulisse Distribution LLC and Coulisse Holding USA Inc. (“Coulisse”), are a Florida based company that sells Window Coverings and according to the Complaint sell a certain brand of window treatments and window components for their “Roller Blinds” product under the name “Genesis.” According to the Complaint, LVB has requested Coulisse cease and desist using the mark GENESIS on its products as it is likely to cause confusion with their products because the Infringing Marks are identical or nearly identical to their mark in sound, appearance and meaning.

November 25, 2020

Netflix’s Attempt to Remove Lawsuit Thwarted

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana –Plaintiffs, City of Fishers, Indiana, City of Indianapolis, Indiana, City of Evansville, Indiana, and City of Valparaiso, Indiana, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated filed suit on September 4, 2020 in Marion Superior Court (Case No. 49D01-2008-PL-026436) alleging that Defendants, Netflix, Inc., Disney DTC LLC, Hulu, LLC, Directv LLC, Dish Network Corp., and Dish Network LLC, violated the Indiana Video Service Franchises Act Ind. Code. § 8-1-34-1 et seq. Plaintiffs are seeking an order declaring Defendants provide video service in Indiana and to require Defendants to perform statutory duties including compensating Plaintiffs and all other units of government for unpaid fees for past service.

Defendant, Netflix, filed a Notice of Removal on September 9, 2020 from Marion County Superior Court 1 to the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Netflix asserted jurisdiction in the Southern District due to diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Netflix noted that since Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this case, three more cases have been filed against Netflix and Hulu alleging similar violations of various state video franchise acts in Texas, Ohio, and Nevada.

Following the Notice of Removal, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case under the doctrine of comity. In the Southern District’s Order, the Court explained, “[t]he comity doctrine encourages federal courts to avoid ‘interfer[ing] . . . with the fiscal operations of the state governments . . . in all cases where the Federal rights of the persons could otherwise be preserved unimpaired.’ Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 560 U.S. 413, 422 (2010).” Therefore, the case was remanded back to Marion Superior Court.

Practice Tip: Removal of a putative class action under the CAFA is proper if: 1) there is a class action; 2) there is minimal diversity between the parties, such that at least one class member is a citizen of a state different from the state of any defendant; and 3) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

October 27, 2020

Trademark Infringement Case Transferred to Northern District of Indiana

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Modern Vascular LLC (“Modern Vascular”), the Plaintiff, originally filed suit against Defendants, Modern Vascular & Vein Center, Nazar Golewale and Jane Doe Golewale, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. In granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana.

According to the Complaint, Modern Vascular has used its mark “MODERN VASCULAR” since 2017, which is registered under U.S. Trademark No. 5,570,334 (the “Registered Mark”). Modern Vascular claims the Defendants have advertised services, entered into agreements, and caused confusion with third parties using its Registered Mark. Due to the alleged continued use of the Registered Mark by the Defendants after being informed of the alleged infringement, Modern Vascular is seeking damages for willful trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and false designation of origin.

March 26, 2020

Motion to Disqualify: Patent Law Firm Tries to Cap Bottle Cap Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

This suit is over the design of two bottle caps.

Plaintiff, Closure, claims it designed the bottle cap on the left, and Defendant, Novembal, got a patent on the bottle cap on the right. But Closure claims that it, not Novembal is the actual “inventor” of the bottle cap design. Perhaps fearing that Novembal was about to file suit, Closure in its home turf of New Jersey and trying to gain a home court advantage, took the initiative and sued Novembal in Indiana. Its Complaint sought to “correct the inventorship” of Novembal’s patent and to prevent Novembal from enforcing the patent against Closure. That suit is reported here: Closure Systems International Sues Novembal USA Seeking Correction of Inventorship. Not surpisingly, Novembal asserted a counterclaim for patent infringement.

The twist is that in the infringement counterclaim, Novembal seeks a broad injunction. So broad, that it would prevent not just Closure, but some of Closure’s customers from infringing the patent. In its counterclaim, Novembal seeks:

A permanent injunction enjoining CSI and its employees, agents, successors, partners, officers, directors, owners, shareholders, principals, subsidiaries, related companies, affiliates, distributors, dealers, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them . . . from making, importing, promoting, offering, or exposing for sale, or selling the CSI Production Closures, or any other closures with designs confusingly similar to the claimed design of Novembal’s ‘442 patent.

One company that apparently gets its bottle caps from Closure is Nestle, one of the biggest sellers of bottled water. So far, no big deal. Except, Nestle is represented by the blue chip Washington DC patent law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. Finnegan happens to be the same law firm that represents Novembal in the suit with Closure. So Finnegan is attempting to get an injunction for one client (Novembal) that would apply to another client, Nestle. Continue reading