Trademark Infringement

March 11, 2024

Red Hex Rivalry: Valcrum Hubcaps vs. Dexter’s Fortress

In Cyprus, Texas, Valcrum, LLC (“Valcrum”), a company specializing in trailer and axle market products, is engaged in a legal dispute with Dexter Axle Company, LLC (“Dexter”) from Indiana over trademark and trade dress infringement regarding a hubcap design.

According to court documents, Valcrum has developed a reputation for innovative hubcaps designed for 8,000-16,000-pound trailer axles. These hubcaps are identified by their distinct features, including a “signature red hex bezel with a hexagonal outer perimeter and an inner diameter.” Valcrum claims to have begun establishing trademark and trade dress rights for this design as early as late 2018.

The dispute arises from Valcrum’s allegation that Dexter, a manufacturer and distributor of axle and trailer accessories, has copied Valcrum’s hubcap design, including the distinctive red hex bezel, to market its own product called the “Fortress” hubcap. Additionally, Valcrum contends that Dexter breached a Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) by allegedly using confidential information, such as Valcrum’s customer list, to its advantage.

March 8, 2024

Protecting Quality: Nutramax Laboratories Takes Legal Action Against Alleged Unauthorized Resale

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (“Nutramax”) have recently begun legal proceedings against CNB Retailers, LLC, Brett Hart, and Christina Miller (“Defendants”) alleging unauthorized resale of Nutramax products. The suit involves allegations concerning trademark infringement, unfair competition, and interference with contractual agreements.

Nutramax Labs and Nutramax Vet, entities headquartered in South Carolina, are known for their development and distribution of health supplements tailored for companion animals. Court documents state that the trademarks associated with Nutramax, such as NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE, are widely recognized within the industry. Nutramax products are sold through authorized retailers which may have online or brick-and-mortar locations.

The crux of Nutramax’s grievance lies in Defendants’ purported unauthorized sales of Nutramax products, notably on Amazon.com, under the seller account name “UniversalExports.” In addition to the accused products bearing the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE trademarks, Nutramax asserts that the products being distributed by Defendants differ materially from those authorized by Nutramax, thus failing to meet the requisite quality standards. These requirements include proper storage conditions to maintain product quality and providing customer support and knowledge about Nutramax products.

February 26, 2024

Franchise Freeze-Out: Baskin-Robbins vs. Blue Moo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“Baskin-Robbins”) v. Blue Moo Ice Cream Inc. (“Blue Moo”) is a breach of contract and trademark infringement suit involving Plaintiff Baskin-Robbins/BR IP Holder, a well-known franchisor in the ice cream industry, and Defendants Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc., and Robert Holocher.

According to the complaint, Baskin-Robbins entered into franchise agreements with Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. for the operation of Baskin-Robbins franchises in the greater Indianapolis area. However, Baskin-Robbins claims the termination of the agreements ensued due to Blu Moo’s repeated failure to fulfill financial obligations to Baskin-Robbins, triggering a series of legal actions.

The crux of the case revolves around Blu Moo’s alleged unauthorized use of Baskin-Robbins’ intellectual property, including trademarks and trade dress, after the termination of franchise agreements. Baskin-Robbins claims to have given clear instructions to cease operations and de-identify the restaurants, but Blu Moo purportedly continued to operate, sparking Baskin-Robbins’ claim of irreparable harm to their brand reputation and goodwill.

February 2, 2024

CONNEX(T) Clash: Ventris Medical vs. Nexxt Spine Trademark Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In a recent legal action, California-based Plaintiff Secada Medical LLC, doing business as Ventris Medical, LLC, has filed a complaint against Defendant Nexxt Spine, LLC alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.

Court documents state that Ventris has expertise in creating, promoting, and distributing advanced tissue and bone healing solutions tailored to meet the specific requirements of different surgical fields. Ventris claims to have actively advertised and sold items bearing the CONNEXT® brand for numerous years. They allege that Nexxt Spine, and Indiana company, is violating Ventris’ trademark by using a similar mark, CONNEXX, for their own surgical implant kits.

The crux of Ventris’ complaint lies in the similarity between the CONNEXT® mark and Nexxt Spine’s CONNEXX mark, with the only difference being the final letter (“T” vs. “X”). Ventris asserts that both marks are used in connection with highly related surgical products and are targeted at the same consumers within the medical community, thus increasing the likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the source or affiliation of the products.

January 8, 2024

Trademark Infringement Suit Over “Buttermilk”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In a recent legal case involving Illinois Plaintiff, SAK Group, Inc. and Indiana Defendant, Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc., the complexities of trademark infringement and its legal implications came to the forefront.

According to the complaint, SAK Group, Inc., is a renowned restaurant group operating under the trademark “Buttermilk Café.” They initiated legal action against Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc., alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Plaintiff asserted that Blue Hill Hospitality’s use of the name “Buttermilk Pancake House” and its similar mark posed a threat to SAK’s established trademark rights, leading to confusion among consumers.

The complaint filed by SAK Group, Inc. encompassed various legal claims, including federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, false designation of origin, passing off, unfair competition, and violation of state laws related to deceptive trade practices. Each claim was supported by specific allegations regarding the similarities in marks, potential confusion among consumers, and the alleged willful nature of Blue Hill Hospitality’s actions.

January 5, 2024

Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. v. Dr. Permagreen, LLC

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In a recent lawsuit filed by Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. against Dr. Permagreen, LLC, Michael Edward Klott, and FTW Investments LLC, Perma-Green, an Indiana entity in the commercial lawn-care equipment industry, alleges that the defendants engaged in the deliberate and unauthorized use of Perma-Green’s trademark, PERMAGREEN. The complaint asserts that the defendants sold products under the name ‘Dr. Permagreen,’ which, according to the Plaintiff, bears a confusing similarity to Perma-Green’s mark, misleading consumers into falsely believing that the products were affiliated with Perma-Green. These allegations suggest that the defendants’ actions caused consumer confusion, negatively impacting Perma-Green’s reputation and raising concerns about product safety.

If the Plaintiff’s allegations are proven true, this infringement not only violates federal laws, particularly the Lanham Act but also raises ethical questions surrounding fair competition and consumer protection. Regarding potential consequences, the relief sought by Perma-Green includes injunctions, damages, and legal fees, indicating the potential ramifications faced by the defendants for trademark infringement and deceptive practices.

The case has been assigned to Judge Philip P. Simon and Magistrate Judge John E. Martin, in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00341-PPS-JEM.

December 22, 2023

Upholding Quality and Protecting Brands: Tempur Sealy v. Luxury Mattress & Furniture

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In the competitive world of mattresses and bedding, brand recognition and trust are paramount. Companies invest years in building their reputation, and protecting their intellectual property is crucial. Plaintiff Tempur Sealy International Inc. recently filed a lawsuit against Defendant Luxury Mattress & Furniture LLC, a suit highlighting the significance of safeguarding trademarks and brand integrity.

According to the complaint, Tempur Sealy is a renowned name in the realm of premium mattresses. Known for its TEMPUR-PEDIC products, Tempur Sealy claims distinctiveness based on their high-quality materials and unparalleled comfort. The company states that they meticulously develop, manufacture, and market products under various trademarks such as TEMPUR, TEMPUR-PEDIC, and TEMPUR SEALY. In addition, they describe exhaustive efforts to maintain their brand’s integrity, from stringent quality control measures to an authorized network of retailers, attempting to ensure that customers receive authentic products and services.

The Plaintiff claims that on February 2, 2023, it notified the Defendant that it was terminating Luxury Mattress’s authorization to sell Tempur Sealy products. The Plaintiff then alleges that Luxury Mattress continued to use the TEMPUR-PEDIC Marks in its Valparaiso, Indiana, retail location and on its website. Furthermore, Tempur Sealy asserts that the Defendant was using the TEMPUR-PEDIC Marks to advertise different products that were not associated with the Plaintiff’s product.

December 1, 2023

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

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

October 30, 2023

Mortgage Company Seeks FREEDOM From Alleged Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Jersey Plaintiff, Freedom Mortgage Corporation, has filed a complaint against New Albany, Indiana Defendant, Freedompoint, LLC, for claims of trademark infringement and related unfair competition in the home mortgage and refinancing field.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has owned and used several FREEDOM trademarks since December 1992, and its subsidiary (Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation) has owned and used ROUNDPOINT marks for the last 13 years. The trademarks that are at issue in the lawsuit are the FREEDOM MORTGAGE trademark (Reg. No. 4,631,944), the FREEDOM MORTGAGE logo trademark (Reg. No. 4,631,946), the ROUNDPOINT trademark (Reg. No. 3,595,914), and ROUNDPOINT EXCHANGE (Reg. No. 5,172,847). According to Court documents, all the trademarks are specified for use in financial services, specifically the mortgage industry.

Freedom Mortgage alleges that the Defendant, Freedompoint, began using the word and design marks FREEDOMPOINT, FREEDOMPOINT MORTGAGE, and their FREEDOMPOINT logo as early as 2020. It is the Plaintiffs’ belief that the FREEDOMPOINT mark used by the Defendants in similar financial and mortgage services is a combination of its own FREEDOM MORTGAGE and ROUNDPOINT marks and, therefore, causes confusion among its customer bases. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs’ contend that the Defendants previously knew about the FREEDOM marks owned by the Plaintiff and have refused to cease-and-desist from using the alleged Infringing Marks.

October 27, 2023

Banjo Corporation Sues Green Leaf, Inc. Over Trademarked Yellow Handle

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Crawfordsville, Indiana – Plaintiff, Banjo Corporation (formerly known as Terra-Knife and Terra-Products) is suing Fontanet, Indiana company, Green Leaf, Inc. (also known as TerreMax) for Trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), unfair competition, use of false designations of origin and false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); as well as infringement and unfair competition under Indiana common law.

According to the complaint, Banjo is a leading business in the development and sales of commercial, industrial, and agricultural products, and is most widely known for its valves that regulate the flow of liquids in hoses and pipes. It claims its customers identify these valves by their distinctive yellow handle that is sold on all 150 types of control valves that they sell. Court documents show that Banjo has received a Trademark registration (No. 6,600,065) for the Yellow Handle Design specifically for “liquid handling products for commercial, industrial and agricultural use, namely control valves for regulating the flow of liquids in hoses and pipes.”

The Plaintiff alleges that Green Leaf, who sells similar valves but with green handles, recently hired two Banjo employees, and has launched a new division of its company called, TerreMax, which is not only very close in name to Banjo’s previous company names, Terre Knife and Terre Products, but it has also begun selling a line of control valves that have handles in the exact shade of yellow that Banjo uses for their product. The complaint claims that Green Leaf is acting “in a deliberate effort to encourage false associations with Banjo,” through its name change, handle color, and advertisements which point customers away from Banjo and toward Green Leaf’s nearly identical product.