Articles Posted in New Litigation

HH-Inc-300x183Indianapolis, Indiana – Her Imports f/k/a EZJR, Inc. sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution and trade dress infringement.  The lawsuit names Her Hair, Inc., an Indianapolis hair-extension merchant, as Defendant.

Plaintiff markets and sells wigs, hairpieces and hair accessories.  It claims ownership of two trademarks, U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,631,694 for the word mark “HER IMPORTS” and 5,048,646 for “HER IMPORTS” and design.  Both trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant designed and used a similar mark, asserting that it was intentionally crafted “for the sole purposes of imitating Plaintiff’s Trademark, causing actual confusion among the general public, and attempting to pass itself off as being associated with the Her Imports brand.”  Plaintiff further states that Defendant’s trademark has caused actual customer confusion.  Defendant’s mark was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Reg. No. 5,144,514.

1-300x92

2  3-300x168

Plaintiff further accuses Defendant of copying its “unique store interior trade dress,” comprising black and white Damask wallpaper along with red trim, in Defendant’s store.

In this Indiana lawsuit, filed by trademark attorneys for Plaintiff, the following claims are made:

  • Count I: Mark Cancellation 15 U.S.C. § 1064
  • Count II: Trade Dress Infringement 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (as to the Store Interior)
  • Count III: Dilution by Blurring — 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (as to Plaintiff’s Trademark)
  • Count IV: Dilution by Blurring — 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (as to Plaintiff’s Store Interior Trade Dress)
  • Count IV: [sic] Recovery of Profits, Damages, Costs, and Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)
  • Count VI: Destruction of Infringing Articles 15 U.S.C. § 1118
  • Count VII: Injunctive Relief 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1)

Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief, the cancellation of Defendant’s trademark, damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Continue reading

Lilly-1-300x132Indianapolis, IndianaEli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement. Defendants are Actavis LLC of Parsippany, New Jersey; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. of North Wales, Pennsylvania; and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. of Petach Tikva, Israel.

At issue is a patent for Antifolate Combination TherapiesPatent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 patent”) which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  This patent covers intellectual property embodied in Alimta®, a drug therapy used for the treatment of various types of cancer.

In a complaint filed by an Indiana patent litigator, Lilly states that Defendants filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic equivalents of ALIMTA® prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent.  It asserts that this filing constitutes and/or will constitute infringement of the ‘209 patent, active inducement of infringement of the ‘209 patent, and contribution to the infringement by others of the ‘209 patent.

Lilly seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Heartland-300x75Indianapolis, IndianaHeartland Consumer Products LLC and TC Heartland LLC, of Carmel, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the Indiana State Trademark Act, and the common law of the State of Indiana.

At issue are trademarks covering Splenda®-brand sweetener, which has been approved for use in over 80 countries and used in more than 4000 products globally.  In this Indiana litigation, Heartland claims that some or all of the following trademarks have been infringed: 1544079, 3346910; 4172135, 4165028, 4301712, 4172136, 4165029,4122311, 4187229, 4202774, 4230392, 4238101, 4106164, 4664653, and 4744600.  These trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  In addition, Heartland claims ownership of the following pending applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504.

Defendants in the lawsuit are DineEquity, Inc., Applebee’s Franchisor LLC, Applebee’s Restaurants LLC, Applebees-300x220Applebee’s Services, Inc., International House of Pancakes, LLC f/k/a International House of Pancakes, Inc., IHOP Franchising LLC, IHOP Franchise Company, LLC and IHOP FranIHOP-300x225chisor LLC.  Plaintiff asserts that all Defendants have a principal place of business in Glendale, California.  They are accused of leading customers to believe that they offer Splenda-brand sweetener when they do not.  Plaintiff contends that instead of American-made Splenda, the product offered to the customers is, in fact, “a lower-quality product of China.”

Indiana trademark attorneys for Heartland sued in federal court.  They assert:

  • Count I: Common Law Trademark Infringement and Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
  • Count II: False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
  • Count III: Unfair Competition
  • Count IV: Trademark Dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
  • Count V: Trademark Dilution under I.C. 24-2-1-13.5
  • Count VII [sic]: Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
  • Count VIII: Corrective Advertising Damages

Plaintiff asks the court for injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.  They also seek various types of damages, including actual, statutory, punitive and treble damages.

Continue reading

South Bend, IndianaThe Beachwaver Co. of Libertyville, Illinois filed a new lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of patents covering its rotating curling iron. Beachwaver seeks damages as well as injunctive and other relief under 35 U.S.C. 281, et seq.

Defendants in this newest lawsuit are Xtava, LLC of Wilmington, Delaware, C&A IP Holdings, LLC of Dover, Delaware, and C+A Global of Edison, New Jersey.  They are accused of infringing two patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,398,796 (“the ‘796 patent”) and 9,504,301 (“the ‘301 patent”).  These patents, both titled “Hair Styling Device,” have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Untitled-300x63

Plaintiff has filed two similar Indiana lawsuits asserting infringement in recent months, one in October and another in December.  This most recent litigation, filed by Indiana patent lawyers for Beachwaver, lists two counts:

  • Count 1: Infringement of the ‘796 Patent
  • Count 2: Direct Infringement of the ‘301 Patent

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, costs, attorneys’ fees and damages, including treble damages.

Continue reading

Lilly-300x132Indianapolis, IndianaEli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (‘209 Patent).  Defendant is Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC of Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Lilly states that Amneal filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to manufacture and sell two “Pemetrexed for Injection” products prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent.  Lilly contends that the ‘209 patent, which was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, protects the Pemetrexed products.

In this patent litigation, filed by attorneys for Lilly, a single count is listed, “Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209.”  Lilly seeks relief from the Indiana court including a judgment of infringement, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Lilly has had some success protecting its ‘209 patent, which relates to the cancer drug Alimta®, against generic manufacturers.  See, e.g., U.S. Court of Appeals Rules In Lilly’s Favor on Alimta Vitamin Regimen Patent.

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Stump Printing Co., Inc., also known as Shindigz, of South Whitley, Indiana filed a patent lawsuit in the Northern Shindigz-300x126District of Indiana seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement.

Defendant in the litigation is Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC (“ECT”) of Boynton Beach, Florida, which claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,373,261; 7,876,239 and 7,319,414.  These patents were issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In February 2017, ECT sent a letter to Shindigz claiming that Shindigz’s “order confirmation” and “shipping confirmation” systems “infringe claims of the ECT Patents.” The letter demanded that Shindigz pay a fee of $30,000 to license the use of those systems.

In response, Indiana patent lawyers for plaintiff filed this lawsuit asking the court to find the ECT patents ineligible for patenting, not infringed, and invalid.  The complaint accuses ECT of being a “patent troll,” stating that the company makes a practice of “calibrating the amount of [its] settlement demands to be lower than the perceived cost of litigation, to try to ensure that practicing entities settle rather than pursue challenges to the eligibility of validity of the patents through dispositive motions or trial.”  The complaint also asserts that ECT and predecessor in interest Eclipse IP have filed approximately 250 patent lawsuits since 2011.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees as well as two counts of declaratory judgment:

  • Count I: Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement

Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Newton Enterprises Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Singleton Trading Inc. d/b/a Elama d/b/a Blue Spotlight of Brooklyn, New York asserting patent infringement and breach of contract.

These claims follow earlier litigation against Singleton initiated by Newton in June 2016.  That lawsuit, also filed in Indiana, alleged that Singleton Trading had infringed and/or induced ZoomBike-300x290others to infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,568,720 (the “‘720 patent”) for a “Wheeled Vehicle” with its “Zoom Bike” product.

Newton states that the 2016 action was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement under which Singleton agreed to compensate Newton for its claims of past infringement and “permanently cease making, using, offering to sell, or selling the Zoom Bike” or any other product that infringed the ‘720 patent.  Under the agreement, Singleton was granted a limited license to sell its remaining inventory.

Newton now returns to the court alleging that Singleton has breached the settlement agreement by selling units of the Zoom Bike exceeding the scope of the limited license.  Newton further contends that this conduct constitutes willful infringement of the ‘720 patent.

This second complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, lists two counts:

  • Count I: Infringement of ‘720 Patent
  • Count II: Breach of Settlement Agreement

Newton asks the court for a declaration of willful patent infringement; damages, including a trebling of those damages; costs and attorneys’ fees; and injunctive relief.

Continue reading

Bosch-300x122Hammond, IndianaRobert Bosch, GmbH of Stuttgart, Germany and Robert Bosch, LLC of Broadview, Illinois sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair competition.

At issue in this Indiana lawsuit are the following trademarks, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

MARK REG. NO REG. DATE
BOSCH

 

1,637,401

 

Mar. 12, 1991

 

pic 633,563

 

Aug. 28, 1956

 

Defendants in the litigation are Joshua Rayner of Portage, Indiana as well as ten unnamed “Doe” Defendants.  They are accused of “advertising, offering for sale and sale of counterfeit automotive parts” that bear unauthorized copies of Bosch trademarks.
Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiffs list the following claims in this federal lawsuit:

  • Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting in Violation of Sections 32 and 34(d)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act
  • Count II: Trademark Infringement in Violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
  • Count III: Unfair Competition in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
  • Count IV: False Advertising in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief, including statutory damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

MR2-300x168Hammond, Indiana – ME2 Productions Inc. of Carson City, Nevada filed an additional lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement of the action thriller Mechanic: Resurrection.

The lawsuit lists nine anonymous “Doe” Defendants, accusing them of infringing the copyright of the movie, which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. PA-1-998-057.  Plaintiff contends that the Doe Defendants illegally distributed a “screener copy” of the film via BitTorrent, a file-sharing protocol.  Plaintiff further asserted that this was done “in a collective and interdependent manner with other Defendants via the Internet for the unlawful purpose of reproducing, exchanging, and distributing copyrighted material.”

The movie, which is the sequel to the 2011 action film Resurrection, stars Jason Statham, Jessica Alba and Tommy Lee Jones. Plaintiff contends that the Doe Defendants are Indiana residents, stating that it determined through the use of geolocation technology that each had an Indiana Internet Protocol address.

This litigation, filed by a copyright lawyer for ME2 Productions, lists a single count – copyright infringement – and asks the court to award injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Huber-2-300x224New Albany, IndianaHuber Orchards, Inc. of Borden, Indiana filed a trademark lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.  Defendants in the litigation are C. Mondavi & Family (“CMF”) and C. Mondavi & Sons, Inc., both of St. Helena, California.  Huber filed the lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its mark “Huber Winery Generations Indiana Red Wine” does not infringe Defendants’ trademark.

Both Plaintiff and Defendants produce and offer wine products.  In February 2017, CMF sent a cease and desist letter to the president of Huber stating that CMF owns a federally registered trademark for GENERATIONS for wine.  This trademark has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as U.S. Reg. No. 2,236,517.

In the letter, sent to Huber by a trademark lawyer for Defendants, CMF asserts that Huber’s use of the word “Generations” in conjunction with the sale of wine violates the Lanham Act by infringing and diluting CMF’s trademark.  The letter demanded that Huber cease all use of the trademark GENERATIONS in connection with its Huber Winery Generation Indiana Red blend wines.  CMF further contended that Huber is liable for injunctive relief, damages, possible treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

huber-212x300krug

Huber contends that it began selling its “Huber Winery Generations Indiana Red Wine” line locally in 1997, two years before CMF registered its trademark, and that it began selling the wine on the internet in 2004.  It further asserts that its use of its “Huber Winery Generations” common law trademark does not infringe any trademark in which CMF has right because there is no likelihood of confusion.  It asks the court to declare that Huber’s use of “Generations” and “Huber Winery Generations” do not infringe CMF’s GENERATIONS trademark.

Continue reading

Contact Information