Trademark Infringement

August 29, 2025

Name of the Game: JD Sports vs. J.D. Sport

A trademark dispute over the name “JD Sports” has reached federal court in Indiana. The Finish Line, Inc., which does business as JD Sports, along with its parent company JD Sports Fashion Plc, is asking the court to declare that its use of the JD Sports name does not infringe on the rights of J.D. Sport LLC, a Pennsylvania company.

JD Sports Fashion Plc, based in the United Kingdom, operates thousands of stores worldwide and more than 300 in the United States. It holds several federal trademark registrations for “JD” and “JD Sports,” some classified as incontestable under U.S. law. The company states it has used these marks in the U.S. for years, first through online sales and later through physical stores, including several in Pennsylvania.

J.D. Sport LLC, founded in 1989 in Pennsylvania, operates a single store that provides custom embroidery, screen printing, and team apparel for local schools and organizations. The business does not have federal trademark registrations and instead relies on common law rights tied to its local use of the “J.D. Sport” name.

July 14, 2025

Rock and Troll: Led Zeppelin Takes on Online Sellers in Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A British company owned by the members of Led Zeppelin has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Indiana, accusing a group of unidentified online sellers—referred to in the complaint as “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A”—of selling counterfeit merchandise that uses the band’s trademarks without authorization. The company, Superhype Tapes Limited, is based in London and owns the rights to several trademarks associated with Led Zeppelin, one of the most influential rock bands in history. The trademarks at issue in the case are LED ZEPPELIN (U.S. Reg. No. 4,340,692) and THE LED ZEPPELIN EXPERIENCE (U.S. Reg. No. 5,663,514).

According to the complaint, the online sellers have created e-commerce stores designed to trick consumers into thinking they’re buying legitimate Led Zeppelin merchandise. These stores, operating under multiple aliases, allegedly use similar design elements and even search keywords tied to the band’s name to attract buyers looking for official products.

The lawsuit says that the sellers are offering unauthorized goods such as clothing, posters, and other items that imitate the real products made and sold under Led Zeppelin’s brand. Superhype Tapes claims the merchandise not only infringes on their trademarks but also harms their reputation by confusing customers and diluting the value of the brand.

June 16, 2025

Brew-Haha Over Branding: Dog ‘N Suds Pours On the Pressure in Trademark Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

An Indiana-based company, TK&C’S, LLC, which operates under the name Dog ‘N Suds, has filed a lawsuit in federal court against a Michigan business, Airline Dog ‘N Suds, Inc., and its president, David J. Hosticka. The complaint centers around trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.

Dog ‘N Suds alleges that it owns the exclusive rights to several trademarks associated with its brand, including names, logos, and recipes that date back to the 1950s and have been formally registered for decades. According to the lawsuit, Dog ‘N Suds entered into a licensing agreement with Airline Dog ‘N Suds in 2007, giving them permission to use these trademarks and recipes in a defined region of Michigan. That agreement expired in 2017 and was not renewed.

Despite the expiration of the license, Dog ‘N Suds claims that the Michigan business continued to use its name, branding, and products without authorization. The lawsuit includes allegations that Airline Dog ‘N Suds has continued selling food and root beer under the Dog ‘N Suds branding, which the Indiana company views as a violation of trademark law and a breach of the original licensing agreement. Dog ‘N Suds further claims that attempts to stop the use—including cease-and-desist letters sent in April 2025—were ignored or refused.

May 16, 2025

Glitch in the Merch: Australian Animation Studio Sues Over Alleged Counterfeit Circus

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Glitch Productions Pty Ltd, an Australian animation studio behind hit web series like The Amazing Digital Circus, has filed a lawsuit against various individuals and businesses operating e-commerce stores under various aliases. These stores are accused of selling counterfeit merchandise featuring Glitch’s registered trademarks without permission.

Founded in 2017, Glitch is known for its distinctive 3D animation style and has built a global fanbase with over 8.5 million YouTube subscribers. Its show The Amazing Digital Circus, created by Gooseworx, became a viral success after its October 2023 debut, amassing hundreds of millions of views and expanding to Netflix in 2024. Glitch sells official merchandise—such as clothing, figures, and posters—through its online store, with trademarks recognized in the U.S. and internationally.

The complaint alleges that the defendants target U.S. consumers, including in Indiana, by running interactive storefronts that accept U.S. dollars, ship domestically, and present counterfeit items as official products. Glitch claims the defendants intentionally copy its branding to mislead buyers and weaken its trademark value. The company states it has not authorized these sellers and that their actions violate its intellectual property rights.

April 28, 2025

Weight Loss, Heavy Lawsuit: Lilly says Premier’s Shots Miss the Mark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Premier Weight Loss, also known as Premier Weight Loss of Indiana, is facing a lawsuit from Eli Lilly and Company. The lawsuit claims Premier has been selling altered versions of Lilly’s FDA-approved drugs, MOUNJARO® and ZEPBOUND®. Lilly accuses Premier of repackaging these medications, removing them from their original packaging, and distributing them in third-party insulin syringes without proper labeling, patient instructions, or safety information. Lilly argues that these altered drugs are unsafe, as they lack essential information like batch numbers and expiration dates, and may not meet FDA-approved dosages or sterility standards.

Lilly points out that Premier’s practices, including splitting auto-injector pens into multiple doses, can result in inconsistent and potentially harmful concentrations. The company also says Premier’s marketing misleads consumers and healthcare providers into believing these altered products are authentic, when they are not. Premier’s use of Lilly’s trademarks in advertisements is also a violation of intellectual property laws, according to the lawsuit.

Lilly argues that these practices pose serious risks to patients, particularly those using the drugs to manage conditions like type 2 diabetes. They believe the unapproved alterations could lead to ineffective treatments or dangerous side effects. The lawsuit aims to stop the sale of these allegedly altered drugs and correct Premier’s supposed false advertising. Lilly is also seeking damages for the purported harm caused by Premier’s actions.

April 16, 2025

Bone of Contention: WOOF FEST Fight Lands in Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – A legal dispute has emerged over a local fundraising event called “Woof Fest.” Allison Bush, an event organizer who has been planning and promoting fundraising events since 2019, claims her intellectual property has been used without permission by P.A.A.W.S., Inc.—a local animal rescue group—and its treasurer, Julie Frazier.

According to the complaint, in July 2024, Bush and Frazier began discussing a joint fundraising event to benefit local foster-based animal rescues. During those discussions, Frazier suggested the name ‘Woofstock,’ despite allegedly knowing it was already used by another organization. In response, Bush says she proposed the alternative name ‘Woof Fest.’

Court Documents state that Bush then moved forward with the idea, hiring an artist to create a logo using images of her own dogs. The case filings further report that Bush paid for the design, received full rights to it, and began promoting “Woof Fest” on social media and other platforms. Records note that she later registered the name, WOOF FEST, and logo with the U.S. Copyright Office and applied for federal trademark protection.

March 24, 2025

Trademark Tug-of-War: Shezan Brands Battle Over Trademark Registrations

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Shezan Services (Private) Limited and Shezan International Limited have filed a legal complaint seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Indiana companies, Intershez Corporation and Shezan, LLC. The plaintiffs claim that Intershez and Shezan, LLC fraudulently registered Shezan Services’ trademarks in the United States and used these registrations to have U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detain shipments of genuine Shezan products.

According to court documents, Shezan International, established in 1964, is known for high-quality food and beverage products, including juices, jams, sauces, and canned goods. These products are sold in over 25 countries, including the United States. Shezan Services claims to own the SHEZAN trademark and logo for these products.

Plaintiffs allege that Intershez, formed in 1996 and with a distribution agreement with Shezan International, registered Shezan Services’ trademarks without permission in 2004. They further claim that in 2020, these trademarks were transferred to Shezan, LLC, a company established by the same individuals who previously managed Intershez. The plaintiffs argue that after Intershez was dissolved in 2008, it falsely claimed ownership of the trademarks and used them to record with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), resulting in the detention of genuine Shezan products.

March 21, 2025

Trouble at Home: My Healthy Home, LLC Takes Legal Action Over Trademark Dispute Against Healthy Home Experts, LLC

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

My Healthy Home LLC, a New Jersey-based company focused on promoting healthier living environments, has filed a complaint against the Indiana-based company Healthy Home Experts, LLC, and Joshua Harper for trademark infringement. According to court documents, My Healthy Home has been recognized since 2002 for its environmentally friendly services, including air quality testing and mold remediation, and holds several federally registered trademarks, including HEALTHY HOME EXPERT.

The dispute centers around the defendants registering the domain name https://www.healthyhomeexperts.net/ and forming a business under the name Healthy Home Experts, LLC, which reportedly creates confusion due to its similarity to My Healthy Home’s trademark. The defendants reportedly offer overlapping services, such as air quality testing and mold remediation, using the allegedly infringing name.

My Healthy Home is seeking legal relief for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, cybersquatting, and unfair competition. The company is requesting an injunction to stop the defendants from using the infringing name and domain, as well as damages, including the transfer of the domain to My Healthy Home. They also seek reimbursement for attorney’s fees and compensation for any harm caused to their brand.

March 17, 2025

Granger, Indiana Entrepreneur Zachary Richard Zellers Sues Over Trademark Infringement, Faces Legal Hurdles in Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Granger, Indiana – Zachary Richard Zellers has filed a lawsuit against Diz Jackson and two unknown defendants, using “John Doe” as placeholders, claiming they are using his trademark “DJ Zman” without permission. Zellers, who claims to own the trademark through his DJ, Audio/Visual, and stage production business, DJ ZMAN LLC, argues the defendants’ use of the name online and on social media is damaging his brand and constitutes trademark infringement. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, includes documents showing that Indiana officially issued the trademark in question to DJ ZMAN LLC on February 20, 2025.

However, Judge Damon R. Leichty responded to the complaint, highlighting several issues with Zellers’ self-filed case. He explained that Zellers, who requested a waiver for filing fees due to financial hardship, did not meet the necessary legal requirements for a trademark infringement case. The judge noted that Zellers failed to provide enough detail about the harm caused and emphasized that the trademark belongs to DJ ZMAN LLC, not Zellers personally. Therefore, the lawsuit should be filed by the company, which must also be represented by a lawyer in court.

The court also noted that Zellers cannot use “John Doe” placeholders for the unknown defendants. Instead, he or the company must identify the defendants and provide their details. Judge Leichty gave Zellers until March 28, 2025, to amend his complaint and comply with the required legal procedures. Zellers was also informed he could reapply to have the court waive his fees after making the necessary changes.

February 21, 2025

RestoPros Files Lawsuit for Trademark Infringement and Breach of Agreement in Restoration and Remediation Dispute.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

RestoPros Franchising, LLC, a North Carolina-based company specializing in restoration and mold remediation services, has filed a lawsuit against Indiana company, SFTS Services, Inc. and its owners, Dale L. Bailey and Brandy M. Bailey. The lawsuit accuses the Baileys of trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and breaching their franchise agreement with RestoPros. Specifically, RestoPros alleges that the Baileys used its registered trademark “RESTOPROS” and confidential business information to launch a competing business, “Restore and Renew Professionals,” after leaving the RestoPros franchise. The Baileys are also accused of improperly using RestoPros’ branding, phone numbers, and customer reviews for the new business, while failing to adhere to various terms of the franchise agreement, including payments and territorial restrictions.

Despite multiple cease-and-desist requests, the Defendants reportedly ignored RestoPros’ attempts to settle the matter outside of court. RestoPros is seeking damages for breach of contract, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Additionally, the company is requesting an injunction to prevent the Defendants from continuing to use its trademarks or operate their competing business.

The case has been assigned to Judge Matthew P. Brookman and Magistrate Judge Kellie M. Barr in the U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana Case No. 1:24-cv-02171.