Trade Dress

September 6, 2013

Texas Roadhouse Sues Multiple Restaurants Operating as “Texas Corral” or “Amarillo Roadhouse”

Grand Rapids, Michigan — Trademark lawyers for Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Texas Roadhouse Delaware LLC, both of Louisville, Kentucky (collectively, “Texas Roadhouse”) sued for trademark infringement in the Western District of Michigan alleging that the Defendants, including those doing business as multiple Texas Corral restaurants located in Indiana (collectively “Texas Corral”), as well as one Amarillo Roadhouse restaurant, also located in Indiana, infringed the service mark TEXAS ROADHOUSE, Trademark Registration Nos. 1,833,533; 2,231,309; and 2,250,966, which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Texas Roadhouse operates a Texas-themed restaurant chain. The first Texas Roadhouse restaurant opened in Clarksville, Indiana in 1993. As of March 2013, there were 397 Texas Roadhouse restaurants in 47 states and three countries.

Texas Roadhouse contends that each of the restaurants is required to comply with strict exterior and interior design requirements so that the look and feel is substantially identical across all Texas Roadhouse locations. It lists three U.S. Service Mark Registrations that include the mark “Texas Roadhouse” and asserts that each of them is incontestable. Texas Roadhouse also claims ownership of various unregistered marks that include the word “Texas” and “Roadhouse” as well as copyright protection, including a U.S. Copyright registration, of its marquee. Finally, Texas Roadhouse claims intellectual-property rights in the trade dress of its restaurants, including the look of the exterior design of the building, the interior décor, the music and the menu.

Texas Corral, against which Texas Roadhouse filed this complaint, also operates casual, western-themed, family restaurants. It owns and operates nine restaurant locations doing business under the name “Texas Corral.” A total of ten locations are at issue in this lawsuit. Six Indiana cities have “Texas Corral” restaurants: Highland, Merrillville, Portage, Michigan City, Martinsville and Shelbyville. Texas Corral also purportedly owns and operates a location that does business as “Amarillo Roadhouse” in Indiana, which is also at issue in this trademark-infringement lawsuit. In addition, three other Texas Corral restaurants have been listed in the complaint: two in Michigan and one in Illinois.

Also listed in the complaint are Paul Switzer, asserted to be the franchisor/licensor of Texas Corral restaurants and Victor Spina, asserted to be a franchisee/licensee. “John Doe Corp.,” a fictitious name intended to represent entities or individuals whose actual identity is not currently known to Texas Roadhouse, is also listed as a Defendant.

In the complaint, trademark attorneys for Texas Roadhouse assert that Texas Corral and Amarillo Roadhouse routinely use trade dress, trademarks, service marks, trade names, designs or logos that are confusingly similar to or copies of intellectual property owned by Texas Roadhouse. This purportedly infringing use is asserted to be visible in signage, print and electronic promotional materials, menus, décor, building design and websites.

Texas Roadhouse’s complaint against Texas Corral and Amarillo Roadhouse lists the following:

· Count I: Trade Dress Infringement

· Count II: Federal Trademark Infringement

· Count III: Trademark Infringement Under Mich. Comp. Laws § 429.42

· Count IV: Trademark Infringement Under Ind. Code § 24-2-1-13

· Count V: Trademark Infringement Under Common Law

· Count VI: Copyright Infringement Under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

· Count VII: Unfair Competition Under Michigan and Indiana Common Law

Texas Roadhouse asks for a judgment that Texas Roadhouse owns enforceable rights in the Texas Roadhouse intellectual property and that all registrations for the Texas Roadhouse intellectual property are valid; a judgment that the Defendants have been and are directly or indirectly infringing the Texas Roadhouse intellectual property; a judgment that the Defendants have been and are engaging in unfair competition by their unauthorized use of the Texas Roadhouse intellectual property; a judgment that Defendants acted deliberately, willfully, intentionally or with malicious intent; an injunction against Defendants prohibiting infringement; damages, including treble damages; a judgment that this case is exceptional and that the Defendants be ordered to pay all of Texas Roadhouse’s attorney fees associated with this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 and 17 U.S.C. § 505; and a judgment that the defendants be ordered to pay all costs and expenses incurred by Texas Roadhouse in this action.

Practice Tip:

The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the requirements for trade dress protection in a similar context. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). At issue in Two Pesos was similar restaurant décor. Taco Cabana had sued rival Two Pesos for copying the look of its restaurant, described as “a festive eating atmosphere having interior dining and patio areas decorated with artifacts, bright colors, paintings and murals. The patio includes interior and exterior areas with the interior patio capable of being sealed off from the outside patio by overhead garage doors. The stepped exterior of the building is a festive and vivid color scheme using top border paint and neon stripes. Bright awnings and umbrellas continue the theme.” The lawsuit alleged that Two Pesos had imitated this scheme and had thereby infringed on Taco Cabana’s trade dress. Among the issues considered was whether trade dress which was inherently distinctive must also be shown to have secondary meaning to be granted protection under the Lanham Act. The Supreme Court held that trade dress which is inherently distinctive is protectable under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act without a showing that it has acquired secondary meaning, since such trade dress itself is capable of identifying products or services as coming from a specific source.

Also at issue in this case, among other matters, will be the eligibility of the words “Texas” and “Roadhouse” for protection under federal and Indiana intellectual-property laws. Under the Lanham Act, a federal law, the holder of a mark may ask the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark on the principal register. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1051, et seq. Marks that are “primarily descriptive” and “primarily geographically descriptive” of the goods or services with which they are associated are not eligible for registration on the principal register unless they have “become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1052(e), (f). Thus, registration of a descriptive mark on the principal register requires a showing of secondary meaning.

Although the Lanham Act protects both registered and unregistered marks, registration is desirable because it constitutes prima facie evidence of the mark’s validity. See 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1057(b), 1115(a). Thus, federal registration of a mark “‘entitles the plaintiff to a presumption that its registered trademark is not merely descriptive or generic, or, if merely descriptive, is accorded secondary meaning.'” The plaintiff bears the burden, however, of establishing that an unregistered mark is entitled to protection.

The Indiana Trademark Act is similar, and in some respects identical, to the Lanham Act. Although Indiana’s body of trademark law is relatively undeveloped, the General Assembly has specified that the Indiana Trademark Act “is intended to provide a system of state trademark registration and protection that is consistent with the federal system of trademark registration and protection under the Trademark Act of 1946.” Ind. Code Ann. § 24-2-1-0.5. Moreover, “[a] judicial or an administrative interpretation of a provision of the federal Trademark Act may be considered as persuasive authority in construing a provision of the Indiana Trademark Act.

The Indiana Trademark Act’s definitions of “trademark” and “service mark” track the Lanham Act’s definitions of those terms nearly verbatim. See I.C. § 24-2-1-2(8), (9). Like the Lanham Act, the Indiana Trademark Act does not adversely affect common-law trademark rights. See I.C. § 24-2-1-15. Registration of a trademark or service mark with the office of the Indiana Secretary of State provides a registrant with a remedy for the infringement thereof under the Indiana Trademark Act. I.C. § 24-2-1-14(a). Like the Lanham Act, the Indiana Trademark Act prohibits the registration of marks that are “primarily geographically descriptive or deceptively geographically misdescriptive of the goods or services[.]” I.C. § 24-2-1-3. This provision does not, however, prevent the registration of a mark that is used in Indiana by the applicant and has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods or services. In other words, a geographically descriptive mark may be registered under the Indiana Trademark Act if it has acquired secondary meaning.
Continue reading

July 18, 2013

Master Cutlery Sues Pacific Solution Marketing for Infringement of Three-Dimensional Artwork Applied to Knives

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana — Intellectual property lawyers for Master Cutlery, Inc. of Secaucus, New Jersey sued Pacific Solution Marketing, Inc. (“Pacific”) of Ontario, California alleging copyright and trademark infringement of three-dimensional artwork applied to knives. Master Cutlery seeks an injunction, damages, treble damages, statutory damages, profits, attorney’s fees and costs.

Founded 30 years ago, Master Cutlery has become the largest importer of knives in the United States. It asserts ownership of federal trademark, patent and copyright registrations for its knives, as well as common law trade dress rights (collectively, “Master Cutlery IP”). Among the rights that Master Cutlery claims are trademarks for the word marks “Sheriff” and “EMT” registered in Class 8 with the U.S. Trademark Office for knives.

Master Cutlery asserts that, after its use and registration of its various items of intellectual property, Pacific also began using the Master Cutlery intellectual property. It contends that Pacific has manufactured, produced, advertised and/or sold knives that infringe upon the Master Cutlery IP. It also asserts that Pacific has distributed advertisements and packaging bearing reproductions of Master Cutlery’s trademarks, trade dress and copyrights.

Master Cutlery sued alleging copyright infringement under the Copyright Act; federal trademark infringement, federal trademark dilution, false designation of origin and false advertising under the Lanham Act; common law trademark and copyright infringement; unfair competition; and theft and counterfeiting under Indiana state law. It further contends that this infringement was willful, intentional and done with the intent to confuse consumers. The complaint, originally filed in Indiana state court, was removed by a trademark attorney for Pacific on both the grounds of federal question and diversity of citizenship.

For its claims, Master Cutlery lists the following:

· Count I: Copyright Infringement Under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

· Count II: Federal Trademark Infringement Under U.S.C. § 1114

· Count III: Trademark Dilution Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)

· Count IV: False Designation of Origin or Sponsorship, False Advertising and Trade Dress Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

· Count V: Common Law Trademark and Copyright Infringement

· Count VI: Unfair Competition

· Count VII: Theft Under Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)

Master Cutlery asks for a permanent injunction enjoining infringement; that Pacific be required to deliver to Master Cutlery both unsold goods and goods already distributed or sold so that they can be destroyed; for compensatory damages; for treble damages or, alternatively, Pacific’s profits trebled; for statutory damages; and for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Practice Tip: Master Cutlery has included a count of felony theft under Indiana Code § 35-43-4-2(a) in its complaint. The extent to which intellectual property is “property” in the usual sense has been litigated several times recently in the Indiana appellate court, which has made it clear that criminal statutes often apply differently to an unlawful taking of intellectual property. For a discussion of two recent cases, see here and here.

March 22, 2013

Royal Purple Sues Liqui Moly GmbH for Trademark Infringement for Selling Purple Lubricants

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark lawyers for Royal Purple, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana sued Liqui Moly GmbH of Ulm, Germany in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement for selling purple automotive lubricants.

At the center of this litigation is the right to use the color purple. Royal Purple claims it has sold lubricants for more than 20 years and has trademarked the color purple. It owns several federal trademark registrations for the color purple as applied to lubricating oils for automotive, industrial and household uses. Among the trademarks are U.S. Registration Nos. 2,691,774; 2,953,996 and 3,819,988 which cover the following:

It also owns multiple trademarks incorporating the word “purple” as applied to various goods. These trademarks are registered with the US Trademark Office. Purple was chosen for its association with royalty. (Historically, purple dye was so expensive to produce that it was used only by royalty.) Royal Purple’s purple-identified lubricant products are sold in over 20,000 retailers in the United States and Royal Purple claims a strong secondary meaning and substantial goodwill in its trademark as a result of this use.

Liqui Moly sells Liqui Moly and Lubra Moly brand motor oil, both of which have packaging that is supposedly purple prior to sale. Royal Purple alleges that Liqui Moly’s use of the color purple in conjunction with the sale of motor oil is likely confuse consumers. According to Liqui Moly’s website, its products are sold in a variety of different containers:

Royal Purple also alleges that Liqui Moly’s use is a purposeful attempt to trade upon Royal Purple’s trademark and that Liqui Moly’s use will dilute the “distinctive quality” Royal Purple’s trademarks. Finally, it alleges that Liqui Moly’s use removes from Royal Purple its ability to control the quality of products and services provided under Royal Purple’s trademark, by placing them partially under the control of Liqui Moly, an unrelated third party.

The federal claims include trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution under the Lanham Act; Royal Purple has also alleged dilution, trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment under Indiana common law. Royal Purple seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, the destruction of all allegedly infringing inventory, treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Color can serve as a useful identifier of the source of goods to consumers. The courts, however, have had to draw some narrow lines to balance the various interests. On the one hand, companies often invest significant amounts of money in promoting their brands and color is frequently a component of that promotion. On the other hand, there are a limited number of colors – and an even more limited number of colors that are pleasing and appropriate for any given type of product – and courts are wary of providing a monopoly on any given color to any one company. After all, if such a monopoly is first provided to one company, all too soon the entire spectrum may be spoken for.
Continue reading

March 15, 2013

Klipsch and Audio Products International Sue Monoprice for Patent, Trade-Dress and Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Ind. – Klipsch Group, Inc. (“Klipsch”) and Audio Products International Corp. (“API”), both of Indianapolis, Ind., have sued Monoprice, Inc. (“Monoprice”) of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. alleging patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition and copyright infringement.

In an eight-count complaint, intellectual property attorneys for Klipsch and its subsidiary API allege that Monoprice has been engaged in manufacturing, importing, selling and/or offering to sell a system entitled “5.1 Hi-Fi Home Theatre Satellite Speakers & Subwoofer” which is a less expensive “knock-off” of plaintiffs’ “ENERGY® TAKE CLASSIC™ 5.1” (“Energy Take Classic 5.1”) home theater system.

Count I of the complaint alleges the infringement of API’s Patent No. 6,725,967 (“Low distortion loudspeaker cone suspension“; also called the “‘967 Patent”) which was issued by the U.S. Patent Office in 2004.

The system has apparently been well received, garnering positive reviews and selling well. In Count II, “Trade Dress Infringement and Unfair Competition,” it is alleged that API has continuously promoted the Energy Take Classic 5.1 system and its predecessors and that, as a result of the commercial success of the systems, the systems’ trade dress has acquired secondary meaning among relevant consumers as an identifier of the source of the Energy Take Classic 5.1 system. The complaint further alleges that Monoprice’s conduct is causing confusion among consumers as to the affiliation of Monoprice with API and as to the origin of Monoprice’s goods.

Counts III through VII [NB: this should have been “III through VIII”; “Count III” was enumerated as a separate count twice in the complaint], all pertain to copyright infringement. More specifically, it is alleged that Monoprice has violated the copyrights of:

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Home Theatre System as a whole

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Satellite Speaker

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Center Channel Speaker

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Subwoofer Speaker

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Subwoofer Backplate

· the Energy Take Classic 5.1 Owner’s Manual

The complaint lists 14 separate requests for relief [NB: these appear, upon first count, as 13; however “request for relief” letter “k” is listed twice]. Among these are requests for judgments against Monoprice for infringement of the ‘967 Patent, trade-dress infringement, unfair competition and copyright infringement. API seeks compensatory damages and, for willful and deliberate wrongdoing by Monoprice, statutory damages up to treble the actual amount found or assessed by the court. API also asks the court to enjoin infringing behavior by Monoprice. Finally, it asks for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

Practice Tip: There is certainly some overlap between design-patent infringement and copyright infringement. However, the multiple counts of copyright infringement for speakers and similar “original work[s] of authorship” – all of the applications for which were filed on February 22, 2013 – attempt to proceed under copyright law against alleged infringements that seem more appropriately considered to be a matter of design-patent law. Proceeding under copyright law, however, does have two significant advantages: a liberal filing period and a substantially longer period of protection. Many products are brought to market without having filed for a design patent. If the application for such a patent is not filed within one year of the public offering or sale of the products, the statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102 will prevent the design patent from being issued. Copyright has no such strict application deadline. Additionally, the 14-year life of design-patent protection is in stark contrast to the protection available under copyright law to a corporation for a work-for-hire, which can extend over 100 years.

May 23, 2012

Mortar Net USA LTD Sues Keene Building Products Company For Trademark Infringement of Dovetail Shaped Mesh for Masonry

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond; IN – Trademark attorneys for Mortar Net of Burns Harbor, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit in alleging Keene Building Products of Mayfield Heights, Ohio infringed trademark registration nos. 3,571,383 and 3,571,384, which have been registered with the US Trademark Office.

Mortar designs and sells construction products and building materials. One of its products is called Mortar Net and has been sold by the company since 1993 for use in masonry. The mark in question is associated with the Mortar Net product. The Mortar Net’s dovetail shape has industry recognition, and the shape has been registered as a trademark. The complaint alleges that Keene is offering products for sale that infringe Mortar’s trademarks on Keene’s website. Keene’s allegedly infringing product is called Keystone. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. Mortar seeks an injunction, an order requiring the destruction of all of Keene’s keystone products, damages, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: The trademarked image is simply a black colored shape. It doesn’t seem to indicate any particular brand or product. There are likely issues about whether the trademark of the shape can be validly enforced.

May 3, 2012

Southern District Grants Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Some Copyright Claims In Dispute Over Virgin Mary Images

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis; IN – The Southern District of Indiana has granted partial summary judgment that dismisses many of Patricia Fuller a/k/a Sister Joseph Therese’s claims in a lawsuit over the physical and intellectual property rights to certain images and statues of the Virgin Mary, which are titled Our Lady of America. Intellectual property attorneys for Kevin B. McCarthy of Indianapolis, Indiana, Albert H. Langsenkamp, Carmel, Indiana and BVM Foundation, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana had filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana making several claims against Patricia Ann Fuller, also known as Sister Joseph Therese of Fostoria, Ohio and John Doe of Ohio. Ms. Fuller apparently has counterclaimed claiming trademark and copyright ownership of the copyrighted work OUR LADY OF AMERICA.

The court’s partial judgment dismisses Fuller’s defamation, RICO and trade dress claims as well as her copyright claims that do not relate to the copyrighted works VAu000297438, VA0000643362 and TXu000366731, which have been registered by the US Copyright Office. The court also stayed the litigation, pending a resolution from the Catholic Church of “the status/ownership of ecclesiastical property and property rights arising while Sister Ephrem was a nun[.]”

This case has convoluted facts and procedural issues. We have previously blogged about the case here.

Practice Tip: It looks like the copyright claims are going to turn on whether Ms. Fuller or the Catholic Church is the owner of the copyrights. The records of the US Copyright Office indicate that “Sister Mildred Mary Neuzil” is the copyright claimant.

January 10, 2012

Coach Sues Kristy Davidson for Trademark and Copyright Infringement of the Coach Marks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis; IN – Trademark lawyers for Coach Inc. of New York, New York filed a trademark and copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indianaalleging Kristy Davidson d/b/a Kristy’s Trends of Greenfield, Indiana infringed the Coach’s registered trademarks and copyrights, including the copyrighted works known as the “Coach Design Elements” including the SIGNATURE C DESIGNS, Registration No. VAu1-046658, COACH 70^th ANNIVERSARY SNAPHEAD PRINT Registration No. VA1-010-918, and COACH CLOVER DESIGN, which have been registered by the US Copyright Office, and approximately fifty trademarks that have been registered by the US Trademark Office.

The complaint alleges that Ms. Davidson is designed, distributed, sold, promoted and offered for sale products that bear the Coach marks and copyrights without authorization from Coach. Essentially, Coach claims the Ms. Davidson is offering counterfeit Coach products for sale. The complaint alleges that on November 7, 2011, a Coach Representative visited Kristy’s Trends in Greenfield, Indiana and purchased a handbag bearing the Coach marks, but that was not an authentic Coach handbag. The complaint alleges that the representative saw 20 additional handbags, six wallets, and a pair of boots bearing the Coach marks that was offered for sale. The complaint states that Coach’s trademark attorneys sent a cease and desist letter to Ms. Davidson thereafter. In response, Ms. Davidson surrendered handbags, wallets, sunglasses and boots bearing the Coach marks.

The complaint makes claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, trademark dilution, unfair competition, forgery and counterfeiting. Coach seeks an injunction, damages of $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark, actual and punitive damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: Coach has been very aggressive in protecting its intellectual property rights in Indiana courts in the last year. Coach’s intellectual property attorneys have filed eight similar lawsuits in Indiana courts, which Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News has blogged and that are linked below.
Continue reading

November 9, 2011

Update: Coach Trademark Infringement Suit against Novelty Inc. Has Settled

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A trademark infringement case in the Southern District of Indiana has recently settled. In May 2010, intellectual property counsel for Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc., both of New York, NY, had filed an infringement suit alleging Novelty, Inc. of Greenfield, IN, has infringed numerous COACH trademarks which have been registered with the U.S. Trademark Office, as well as infringed copyrighted design elements and product trade dress. The case was blogged about by Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News. The case has recently been dismissed from the court’s docket with a notice that an undisclosed settlement had been reached.

Coach’s trademark attorneys had accused Novelty of offering products bearing source-identifying indicia and design elements which are “studied imitations” of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property. Novelty failed to file an answer to the complaint on time, and Coach obtained a default judgment in August 2010. Novelty then successfully petitioned the court to set aside the default judgment, arguing that it had not answered the complaint because settlement discussions were ongoing. The parties apparently had a discovery dispute relating to the extent to which a protective order concerning confidential information should be in place and whether certain disclosures should be limited to “attorney eyes only.” In July, Magistrate Baker sided with Coach in the discovery dispute noting “The Defendant has not shown sufficient cause for an “attorney’s eyes only” provision, and Defendant’s other objections, while not unreasonable, are not more compelling than Plaintiffs’ proposal.” The case has now been settled.

Practice Tip: In this case, Novelty argued that the default judgment should be set aside because settlement negotiations were ongoing at the time. Although Novelty successfully had the default set aside, other courts have not allowed this excuse for failing to file an answer or seek an extension of time. See U.S. v. Topeka Livestock Auction, Inc., 392 F.Supp. 944 (D.C. Ind. 1975). This illustrates the importance of complying with the deadline for answering a complaint, even if settlement seems likely.

This case was assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:10-cv-00615-RLY-TAB.

September 26, 2011

James Buchanan and J. B. Custom, Inc. Sues Henry Repeating Arms Company for Trade Dress and Right of Publicity Right Infringement for Firearms Ads in Allen County Superior Court, Case Removed to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, IN – Trademark lawyers for James Buchanan and J.B. Custom, Inc. of Huntertown, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit in Allen County, Indiana Superior Court alleging Henry Repeating Arms Company of Bayonne, New Jersey infringed trademark registration no. 3645700 for the mark MARE’S LEG, registered with the US Trademark Office. On September 20, 2011, the case was removed to the Northern District of Indiana upon motion of trademark attorneys for Henry Repeating Arms Company.

According to the complaint, J.B. Custom owns trade dress rights to unique shapes, designs, and appearances of certain pistols designs, including the “Mare’s Leg” lever-action pistol. J.B. Custom advertises the Mare’s Leg pistol design using unique likenesses of Mr. James Buchanan in cowboy attire, including on its website www.maresleg.com. The complaint alleges that Henry’s 2011 catalog included advertisement for a product called “Henry’s Mare’s Leg.” The product advertisement also appeared on Henry’s website. The complaint alleges the Henry’s Mare’s Leg is virtually identical and confusingly similar to J.B. Custom’s product. The complaint also states that Henry has used Mr. Buchanan’s likeness in advertising the Henry’s Mare’s Leg. Trademark attorneys have made claims of misuse of publicity right relating to the unauthorized use of Mr. Buchanan’s likeness, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, passing off, false advertising and unfair competition.

Practice Tip: In addition to trademark and trade dress claims, which are covered by the federal Lanham Act, the plaintiffs have made a claim under Indiana’s Right of Publicity law because the defendant has alleged used Mr. Buchanan’s likeness in advertisements without Mr. Buchanan’s permission. Indiana Intellectual Property Law News blogged about Indiana’s unique right to publicity law here. The right of publicity protects the right to control the commercial use of a person’s identity.
Continue reading

June 16, 2011

Coach Files Two Trademark and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits in Northern District Over Knock-Off Coach Items

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend; IN – Trademark and copyright lawyers for Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. of New York, New York filed two trademark infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana.

In the first lawsuit, intellectual property attorneys have alleged that Diva’s House of Style and Elizabeth “Beth” Bond of Elkhart, Indiana infringed fifty-one marks that have been registered with the US Trademark Office. The complaint also alleges that Diva’s House and Ms. Bond infringed the copyrighted works LEGACY STRIPE and SIGNATURE C, which have been registered by the US Copyright Office. The complaint alleges that Diva House and Ms. Bond have been designing, manufacturing, and/or selling “studied imitations” of Coach products that bear the Coach trade marks, trade dress and copyrighted works. Coach alleges that Diva House and Ms. Bond advertised the knock-off products on Facebook. A Coach representative used e-mail and phone to correspond with the defendants and purchased a purse from her. The representative then determined that the purse was not a genuine Coach purse and was a knock-off of inferior quality. The complaint makes claims of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, forgery and counterfeiting. This case has been assigned to Judge Jon E. DeGuilio and Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein in the Northern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-00253-JD-CAN.

In the second lawsuit, intellectual property attorneys allege that Lyn-Maree’s LLC of Auburn, Indiana, and its owners, Emma Taylor and Lynn Siples, infringed fifty-one marks that have been registered with the US Trademark Office. The complaint also alleges that Lyn-Maree’s and its owners infringed the copyrighted works LEGACY STRIPE and SIGNATURE C, which have been registered by the US Copyright Office. The complaint states that a Coach representative purchased a hand bag, wallet and sunglasses labeled “Coach” at the Lyn Maree’s retail store. The items were examined by Coach and determined to be not genuine Coach items, but knock-off items of inferior quality. The complaint makes claims of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, forgery and counterfeiting.

Practice Tip: Coach has a reputation for vigorously defending their intellectual property. Coach filed two trademark lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana in April of this year, which were reported on in Indiana Intellectual Property Law News. It seems that a Coach representative is monitoring businesses in the Northern District of Indiana and purchasing knock-off goods that then become the basis of these lawsuits.