Articles Posted in New Litigation


Evansville, IndianaHenager Family Museum, Inc d/b/a National Veterans Memorial of Buckskin, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement.

Plaintiff operates a military memorial in Indiana under the trademark “NATIONAL VETERANS MEMORIAL,” U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,420,974.  That trademark was filed “in connection with promoting public awareness of the need for reconciliation and recognition by all veterans” and was issued on April 29, 2008 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In this Indiana litigation, Henager states that Columbus Downtown Development Corp. (“CDDC”) of Columbus, Ohio is currently developing a museum, scheduled to open in 2018, to be operated under the name “NATIONAL VETERANS MEMORIAL & MUSEUM.”  Henager states that CDDC’s use of this name in a state adjoining Indiana, and in conjunction with the offering of the same type of services, is likely to cause confusion or deceive consumers.   It also contends that CDDC’s use of the purportedly similar name has resulted in CDDC being unjustly enriched at Henager’s expense.

Terre Haute, IndianaJoe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Feasterville, Pennsylvania has sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553.

Joe Hand Promotions specializes in distributing and licensing sporting events to commercial locations such as bars and restaurants.  It is the exclusive domestic distributor of the Ultimate Fighting Championship® series of mixed-martial-arts fights.

Defendant in the lawsuit is Joseph Brush d/b/a Break Time Billiards of Terre Haute, Indiana.  Brush has been accused of illegally intercepting and broadcasting Ultimate Fighting Championship® 198: Werdum v. Miocic, which was telecast nationwide on May 14, 2016.

Indianapolis, IndianaKlipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition by a “gray market” seller of Klipsch audio equipment.

Defendant in this Indiana trademark litigation is listed only as “,” as Klipsch indicates that the website’s proprietors “conceal[] their true identity from customers by using drop shipping addresses and registering their domain name through a third party.”  Jurisdiction in Indiana is asserted on the grounds that, inter alia, Defendant sells infringing goods in Indiana.

Klipsch contends that Defendant interfered with its intellectual property rights in three Klipsch trademarks.  The trademarks at issue are U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 978,949; 2,917,215 and 3,863,511.  These registrations, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, cover various forms of the KLIPSCH® trademark.

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. f/k/a Super 8 Motels, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and other wrongdoings.

Plaintiff Super 8 operates a franchise system for guest lodging.  It claims ownership to the SUPER 8® service mark as well as various related trade names, trademarks and service marks, some of which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  It estimates the value of the entity’s goodwill to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.

In this Indiana intellectual property lawsuit, Super 8 alleges that former franchisees have violated the terms of a franchise agreement entered into with Super 8.  Three Indianapolis Defendants were listed: Auburn Lodging Associates, LLP (“ALA”), Kokila Patel and Dilip Patel.  A fourth Defendant Chicago Capital Holdings, LLC (“CCH”) of Hinsdale, Illinois was also named.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Defendant is Hospira, Inc. of Lake Forest, Illinois.  It has been accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “‘209 patent”) by the filing of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell a pharmaceutical product, “Pemetrexed for Injection,” in various concentrations.  In its filing with the FDA, Hospira contended that the claims of Lilly’s patent are “invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Hospira’s NDA Products.”

Lilly contends that this product will compete with Alimta®, which also consists of the pharmaceutical chemical pemetrexed disodium.  Alimta is used as a chemotherapy agent to treat certain types of cancer.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs Acushnet Company of Fairhaven, Massachusetts, Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. of Huntington Beach, California and Dunlop Sports Co. Ltd. of Hyogo, Japan filed a trademark lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.  This intellectual property litigation, commenced by an Indiana trademark litigator for Plaintiffs, was filed against both an individual and a business entity.

Listed as Defendants in this lawsuit are Giorgio Nunns a/k/a George Nunns a/k/a Georgie Nunns a/k/a Giorgio, an individual, and Custom Golf Solutions, LLC, individually and jointly, doing business under the names “bogie’s nearly new golf,” “gnunns81” and “golfcustomsolutions15.”  Defendants operate in Indianapolis and Carmel, Indiana.

Defendants are accused of engaging in the sale of counterfeit products and infringing upon Plaintiffs’ trademarks.  The following trademarks, to which Acushnet claims ownership and/or an exclusive license, are at issue:

Trademark Registration No. Registration Date Class/Goods
 Tiltleist 1,155,766 26 May 1981 IC 28: golf equipment, namely golf balls, golf clubs and golf bags.
 T 3,376,961 5 February 2008 IC 24: golf towels

IC 25: golf clothing, namely jackets, shirts, hats and visors.

IC 28: golf equipment, namely golf putters, golf club head covers, golf club grips and divot tools.

 crown 2,620,432 17 September 2002 IC 28: golf clubs and accessories, namely golf tees, golf gloves, golf bags, golf putters, golf drivers, golf woods, golf irons, golf green repair tools, golf club covers and golf bag covers.
 ScottCameron 3,421,373 6 May 2008 IC 28: golf equipment, namely golf bags.

Further, Plaintiff Cleveland Golf asserts ownership of the following federal trademarks, also at issue in this lawsuit:

Trademark Registration No. Registration Date Class/Goods
 cleveland 2,070,051 10 June 1997 IC 18: carry all bags and umbrellas

IC 25: golf apparel, namely shirts, caps, visors, sweatshirts, and sweater vests.

IC 28: golf clubs, golf club heads, golf club shafts, golf club grips, golf bags, golf bag covers, and golf club head covers.

 cg 2,302,251 21 December 1999 IC 28: golf clubs, and golf club heads, namely woods, irons, and putters.

Plaintiffs state that Defendants are “manufacturing, promoting and otherwise advertising, distributing, selling, and offering for sale…golf clubs and golf accessories…which are counterfeits and/or infringements” of Plaintiffs’ trademarks.  Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants’ goods are of a “different quality” from Plaintiffs’ “high quality products.”

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ acts damage Plaintiffs’ brands and constitute a fraud upon the public.  The claims in this lawsuit, brought in Indiana federal court, are as follows:

  • Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting
  • Count II: Trademark Infringement
  • Count III: False Designation of Origin Pursuant to § 43(a) of the Lanham Act
  • Count IV: Common Law Trademark Infringement
  • Count V: Civil Action under Indiana Code § 34-24-3-1 for Recovery of Damages, Costs, and Fees Arising from Defendants’ Conversion in Violation of Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3
  • Count VI: Civil Action under Indiana Code § 34-24-3-1 for Recovery of Damages, Costs, and Fees Arising from Defendants’ Forgery in Violation of Indiana Code § 35-43-5-2(b)
  • Count VII: Civil Action under Indiana Code § 34-24-3-1 for Recovery of Damages, Costs, and Fees Arising from Defendants’ Counterfeiting in Violation of Indiana Code § 35-43-5-2(a)
  • Count VIII: Civil Action under Indiana Code § 34-24-3-1 for Recover [sic] of Damages, Costs and Fees Arising from Defendants’ Theft in Violation of Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2
  • Count IX: Civil Action under Indiana Code § 34-24-3-1 for Recovery of Damages, Costs and Fees Arising from Defendants’ Criminal Mischief in Violation of Indiana Code § 35-43-1-2

Plaintiffs ask the court for statutory damages of $2 million for each counterfeit as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

The case was assigned to District Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District and assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-03379-RLY-TAB.

Northern District of Indiana – The Beachwaver Co. of Libertyville, Illinois commenced intellectual property litigation in the Northern District of Indiana asserting infringement of patents pertaining to a rotating curling iron.

Defendant is T3 Micro, Inc. of Venice, California, which is accused of infringing Beachwaver’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,398,796 (“the ‘796 patent”) and 9,504,301 (“the ‘301 patent”).  These patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Both patents are titled “Hair Styling Device.”  One of the two patents was the subject of at least one additional lawsuit in Indiana recently.  That lawsuit, filed in October, covered only the ‘796 patent but included counts for both direct and induced infringement.  In contrast, in this litigation, Indiana attorneys for Plaintiff list only one count of infringement for each of the two patents-in-suit:

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Hawk Technology Systems, LLC of Miami, Florida filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Hawk accuses Defendant Instant Auto Finance Inc. of South Bend, Indiana of infringing U.S. Patent No. RE43,462 (the “‘462 patent”), which is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,265,410.  Claim 12 of the ‘462 patent, and possibly others, is at issue in this litigation.  That claim covers a method of simultaneously displaying and storing multiple video images.

In this complaint, filed by an Indiana patent attorney in conjunction with a lawyer from Minnesota, Hawk contends that Instant Auto Finance infringed the ‘462 patent by using a video storage and display system and/or methods that infringe one or more of the claims in the ‘462 patent.  Plaintiff seeks damages as well as reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.

New Albany, Indiana – FireKing Security Products, LLC of New Albany, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement of a patent related to smart safes.

Defendant in this litigation is American Security Products Company of Fontana, California.  Both Plaintiff and Defendant are in the business of manufacturing smart safes, which feature technology designed to count and log each deposit as it is made into the safe as well as generating and transmitting daily reports of the amount of cash stored in the safe.

American Security makes a line of smart safes offered under the name “CashWizard.”  FireKing asserts that these products infringe its patent for “Electronic Transmission and Tracking of Deposit Information,” which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Patent No. 7,216,098 (the “’098 patent”).  FireKing asserts that it has multiple patents associated with its smart-safe products, including the ‘098 patent, which is the only patent at issue in this Indiana lawsuit.

Evansville, Indiana – Richard Litov of Evansville, Indiana sued Freedom Heritage Museum, Inc., of Evansville, Indiana alleging trademark infringement.  Litov asserts claims under both federal and Indiana law.

Litov claims that he conceived the idea for the museum – a collection of exhibits and artifacts from the World War II era – as well as the museum’s name, stating that he served as its founding president and a founding board member.  He asserts that the museum used the trademarked name pursuant to permission that he granted “as president and board member” of the museum.

The trademark in question has been registered under Litov’s name as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,939,292.  Litov states in his complaint that the registration covers the words FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM and an associated design.  The word portion of the trademark, as listed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s website, is FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM, EST. 2012, EVANSVILLE INDIANA.  The application for the trademark registration was filed on July 6, 2015 and granted on April 19, 2016.

Contact Information