Trademark Infringement

October 14, 2015

Indiana Patent and Trademark Litigation: Global Archery Sues Seattle-Based Company for Infringement

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana intellectual property attorney for Global Archery Products, Inc. of Ashley, Indiana commenced litigation in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark and patent infringement by Jordan Gwyther d/b/a Larping.org and UpshotArrows.com of Seattle, Washington.

Two patents are at issue in this lawsuit: U.S. Patent No. 8,449,413 (the “`413 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,932,159 (the “`159 Patent”). Both are entitled “Non-Lethal Arrow.” Also at issue are U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,208,867 and 4,208,868 for ARCHERY TAG for use in connection with non-lethal arrows. The patents and trademarks have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Global contends that Jordan Gwyther d/b/a Larping.org (“Larping”) is selling and offering for sale several products including a “Crossbow Bolt,” a “Flat Tip Larp Arrow,” a “Glow in the Dark Larp Arrow” and a “Round Tip Larp Arrow.” These arrows are marketed at www.upshotarrows.com. Global asserts that Larping is violating Global’s trademark rights by, inter alia, using the ARCHERY TAG trademark on advertising and as a paid “key word” on one or more search engines in connection with the marketing of these products. Global also claims that Larping’s products infringe upon two of Global’s patents.

In addition to patent infringement and trademark infringement, Global asserts various additional claims against Larping. The counts listed in this federal lawsuit are as follows:

• Count I: Infringement of the ‘413 Patent by Larping
• Count II: Infringement of the ‘159 Patent by Larping
• Count III: Infringement of Federal Trademarks
• Count IV: False Designation of Origin/Unfair Competition
• Count V: False Advertising
• Count VI: Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
• Count VII: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships
• Count VIII: Criminal Mischief

• Count IX: Deception

Global seeks equitable relief along with damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorney fees.

October 2, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indigo Vapor Enterprises Sues Indigo Vapor Company

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indigo Vapor Enterprises LLC of South Bend, Indiana commenced intellectual property litigation against Indigo Vapor Company, LLC, Robert Lee Martin and Charles Nandier of Tucson, Arizona.

Indigo Vapor Enterprises is in the business of selling “vaping” and e-cigarette materials across the United States and throughout the world. It alleges that Defendant sells similar goods in the same marketplace.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants infringed its trademarks, consisting of a stylized INDIGO VAPOR trademark, Registration No. 4,790,247, and a second trademark for INDIGO VAPOR, Registration No. 4,790,244 by using the Indigo Vapor Enterprises name and those trademarks to promote Defendants’ competing products. These accused uses include the operation of a website at www.indigovaporcompany.com. Both trademarks have been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, dilution and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. It also asserts cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) and trademark infringement and unfair competition under the common law of Indiana and other states.

In this lawsuit, filed by Indiana trademark attorneys for Indigo Vapor Enterprises, the following causes of action are listed:

• Count I – Federal Trademark Infringement – Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
• Count II – Federal Unfair Competition – Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
• Count III – False Designation of Origin – Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B))
• Count IV – Federal Trademark Dilution – Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c))
• Count V – Federal Cybersquatting – ACPA and Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))
• Count VI – Common Law Trademark Infringement

• Count VII – Common Law Unfair Competition

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief as well as damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

August 27, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: New Zealand Stroller Company Sued for Use of Navigator Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Baby Trend, Inc. of California filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement. The company claims that Phil and Teds Most Excellent Buggy Company Limited (“Phil and Teds”), a New Zealand-based enterprise, infringed U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,514,646, which has been registered by Baby Trend in the U.S. Trademark Office.

Plaintiff Baby Trend is in the business of designing, manufacturing and marketing juvenile products. It claims that it has made extensive use of the mark NAVIGATOR in connection with its strollers and related products for over 15 years.

Baby Trend has sued Defendant Phil & Teds contending that Defendant uses a mark that infringes Baby Trend’s NAVIGATOR trademark in connection with its stroller and stroller-related goods. This use is alleged to have taken place online at Phil & Teds’ online marketplace, www.philandteds.com, as well as on third-party websites that offer Defendant Phil & Teds’ stroller products, such as Toys R Us/Babies R Us and the BuyBuyBaby website. Baby Trend further states that products bearing an infringing NAVIGATOR mark are also sold in brick-and-mortar stores, directly by Phil & Teds and/or through others. According to Baby Trend, offers for the sale of products bearing an infringing mark have taken place in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The complaint states that Baby Trend asked Phil & Teds “at least as early as June 30, 2015” to discontinue use of the NAVIGATOR mark but that Phil & Teds refused. The complaint subsequently contends that Phil & Teds’ conduct was done willfully, intentionally, knowingly, and in reckless disregard of the consequences to Baby Trend.

In this federal intellectual property litigation, Indiana trademark lawyers for Baby Trend make the following claims:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin 15 .S.C. [sic] § 1125(a)

• Count III: Common Law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement

Baby Trend seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; a declaration that Phil & Teds infringed Baby Trend’s rights in its intellectual property in a deliberate, willful, and/or reckless manner; damages, including treble damages; and costs, litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees.

July 24, 2015

Seventh Circuit Trademark Law: WD-40 Did Not Infringe “Inhibitor” Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the

ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division in the matter of Sorenson v. WD-40 Company, holding that WD-40’s use of “inhibitor” and a crosshair graphic on its product labels did not constitute trademark infringement.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Sorensen founded and is the CEO of a company that produces a line of rust-inhibiting products, which were first sold in 1997. These products contain a substance called volatile corrosion inhibitor (“VCI”). Sorenson owns a federally registered trademark – THE INHIBITOR – for this line of products. He also claims common-law trademark rights to an orange-and-black crosshair design mark that is associated with these products.

July 20, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Infringement Litigation to Proceed in Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana state court complaint filed by Indiana trademark attorneys for 7E Fit Spa Licensing Group LLC, 7E Holdings 1 LLC, and 7E LLC was removed to the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana upon the request of trademark lawyers for Defendants 7EFS of Highlands Ranch, LLC, Spectrum Medspa, Gordon Smith and Jane Smith.

Plaintiffs contend that they entered into various agreements with Defendants, including licensing and operating agreements, and that Defendants breached portions of one or more of the agreements in the operation of Defendants’ Littleton, Colorado business establishment.

Defendants are accused of violating the Lanham Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and 15 U.S.C. § l 125(c) – as well as common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duties and conversion.

June 29, 2015

Seventh Circuit Trademark Law: District Court Has Discretion Regarding Award of Attorneys’ Fees Under Lanham Act

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act by the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff William Burford and Defendant Accounting Practice Sales, Inc. (“APS”) were parties to a contract under which Burford had agreed to market and facilitate the purchase and sale of accounting practices on behalf of APS. APS terminated the contract. Shortly thereafter, Burford started a competing business. For this business, Burford chose the name “American Accounting Practice Sales.” Burford also sued APS and Gary Holmes, the owner of APS, for breach of contract.

In response to Burford’s contract-claims lawsuit, APS filed a four-count counterclaim. Included in those counterclaims was an allegation that Burford had misappropriated APS’s trade name in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. by using the business name “American Accounting Practice Sales.”

The district court held for APS on the contract claim, reasoning that the contract between the parties was of indefinite duration and was therefore terminable at will. After this ruling in favor of APS, but before the district court could consider the counterclaim, APS voluntarily dismissed its counterclaim under the Lanham Act with prejudice.

Burford then contended that, as the prevailing party on the Lanham Act claim, he was entitled to attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), asserting that APS’s pursuit of the Lanham Act claim was meritless and amounted to an abuse of process. The district court refused to grant attorneys’ fees on the theory that APS’s claim under the Lanham Act claim could have been pursued by a rational party seeking to protect its trademark.

Burford appealed. As part of his appeal, he asked the Seventh Circuit to reverse the district court’s denial of his request for attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. Circuit Judges William J. Bauer and David F. Hamilton, and District Court Judge Sara L. Ellis, sitting by designation, heard the matter.

The Seventh Circuit first held that the district court had erred in holding that the contract had not been breached. While indefinite-term contracts are by default terminable at will, it noted that the parties had contracted around that general rule by providing that APS could terminate the contract only if Burford violated the terms of the contract. On this issue, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court.

On the question of attorneys’ fees, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(3), district courts have the discretion to award attorneys’ fees to those prevailing under the Act in “exceptional cases.” Such an “exceptional case” within the meaning of the Lanham Act can be found in those cases where the district court determines that the decision to bring the claim could be called an abuse of process.

In turn, such an abuse of process can be discerned in cases where, for example, “a rational litigant would pursue [the claim] only because it would impose disproportionate costs on his opponent” or where there was evidence that the party advancing the Lanham Act claim had done so “to obtain an advantage unrelated to obtaining a favorable judgment.”

The Seventh Circuit noted that Burford had failed to persuade the district court that the pursuit of the claim was objectively unreasonable or was intended to harass or to obtain an advantage unrelated to winning a favorable judgment. Consequently, because decision whether to award attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act is left to the district court’s sound discretion, the lower court’s refusal to grant such fees was affirmed.

June 23, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Weekends Only, Inc. Sues Weekends Only Clearance Outlet

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Weekends Only, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that AK Distribution LLC and KASH Subsidiaries, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana, one or both of which does business as “Weekends Only Furniture & Mattress Clearance Outlet,” infringed the trademarks WEEKENDS ONLY and WEEKENDS ONLY FURNITURE OUTLET, U.S. Registration Numbers 2,669,149; 2,697,959; 2,834,336; and 2,891,146, which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Plaintiff Weekends Only, Inc. operates business establishments in Indiana and Missouri. It contends that it owns and has used various trademarks, currently registered by the U.S. Trademark Office, that include the words “Weekends Only” since approximately 1997. These trademarks have been registered in Class 35 for “Retail store services featuring furniture.”

In this federal lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants AK Distribution LLC and KASH Subsidiaries, Inc. have used and continue to use confusingly similar versions of the WEEKENDS ONLY and WEEKENDS ONLY FURNITURE OUTLET trademarks. In so doing, states Plaintiff, Defendants have committed trademark infringement under federal and state law, unfair competition under the state law of Indiana, false designation of origin, injury to business reputation and/or trademarks, common law unfair competition.

In the complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney for Plaintiff, the following claims are alleged:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally-Registered Trademark
• Count II: Infringement of Common Law Rights in Trademarks
• Count III: Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of Indiana Code § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq.
• Count IV: False Designation of Origin Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count V: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count VI: Motion for Permanent Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff asks the court for injunctive relief and damages.

June 18, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Imprimis Sues Hook’s Apothecary for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Trademark lawyers for Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of California filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Hook’s Apothecary, Inc. of Indiana, as well as unidentified Doe Defendants 1 through 20, infringed the following Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. trademarks: GO DROPLESS! (U.S. Serial No. 96143543), GO DROPLESS! – Logo (U.S. Serial No. 86143553), LESSDROPS (U.S. Serial No. 86497791), DROPLESS CATARACT THERAPY (U.S. Serial No. 86497090 ), and DROPLESS THERAPY (U.S. Serial No. 86497100), which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Imprimis offers slow-releasing ophthalmic compositions containing triamcinolone acetate, moxifloxacin hydrochloride, triamcinolone acetate, and vancomycin. It offers these products for use in the treatment of acute infections of the eye and for use via intraocular injection. These products are sold under the trademarks at issue in this Indiana lawsuit. The products are also claimed to be the subject of patent applications numbers 14/361,242 and 14/227,819, which have been filed with the USPTO.

Hook’s has been accused of infringing all, or some subset, of these intellectual property rights. Imprimis claims that Hook’s has been manufacturing, marketing, and selling “copycat” “Dropless” formulations, the administration of which has been reported to have caused a high incidence of endophthalmitis and other related problems in patients recovering from cataract surgery. This, Imprimis contends, has created confusion, harmed the reputation of Imprimis’ inventions, and caused some physicians to cease ordering from Imprimis.

In this complaint, filed by trademark attorneys for Imprimis in Indiana federal court, the following counts are alleged:

• Infringement of Trademarks (Against All Defendants)
• Common Law Unfair Competition (Against All Defendants)
• Common Law Trademark and Trade Name Infringement (Against All Defendants)
• For Declaratory Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Against All Defendants)
• For Injunctive Relief (Against All Defendants)

Imprimis asks for general and special damages, as well as a trebling of those amounts “because of the willful nature of said infringements”; for a judgment that Hook’s has violated §§ 1114 and 1125(a) of the Lanham Act; for a judgment that Hook’s has engaged in unfair competition under the common law; for injunctive relief; and for an award of the costs of litigation, including attorneys’ fees.

June 11, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Eco Elettrocomponenti Alleges Sale of Counterfeit Lights by National Supply

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Eco Elettrocomponenti SRL of Reggio Emilia, Italy (“Eco”) filed a trademark-infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that National Supply of Green Bay, Wisconsin sold counterfeit Eco products.

Plaintiff Eco is a manufacturer and supplier of components for lighting attractions. Among its products are cabochon lenses commonly referred to as “Star Lights.” Eco claims that its Star Light cabochon lenses have a distinct physical appearance and configuration. Eco indicates that it owns a trademark, Registration Number 4,401,967, for this distinct configuration.

Defendant National Supply sells specialty lighting and electrical products, including cabochon lenses. National Supply has been accused of having purchased counterfeit Star Lights for resale to consumers. In January 2015, a U.S.-based distributor of Eco’s Star Light contacted National Supply to discuss National Supply’s Internet sales of lenses advertised as Star Light lenses. Eco indicates that, in response to this discussion, National Supply voluntarily agreed not to sell Star Lights.

Eco contends that the sale of such lights by National Supply is nonetheless ongoing, stating that “National Supply offers for sale counterfeit ECO products.” Eco, via its Indiana trademark attorney, has sued National Supply, asserting that National Supply intentionally, knowingly, and willfully purchased and redistributed counterfeit Eco products. This trademark lawsuit asks the Indiana court for actual and/or statutory damages; a finding that this is an exceptional case meriting an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages; and for injunctive relief.

June 5, 2015

Indiana Trademark and Patent Litigation: Simpson Sues Two Indiana Individuals Alleging Patent Infringement and Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Trademark and patent attorneys for Simpson Performance Products, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina (“Simpson”) and SFI Foundation, Inc. of Poway, California (“SFI”) commenced trademark litigation in the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Robert Wagoner of North Judson, Indiana and Derek Randall Cathcart of Valparaiso, Indiana infringed the SIMPSON® family of trademarks, some of which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. Among the trademarks at issue are U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,117,821; 1,243,427; 3,026,333; 3,026,334; and 3,050,920. Also at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,931,669 and 8,272,074.

Plaintiff Simpson is a manufacturer of automotive and motorsports specialty/performance products, including head and neck restraints for competitive racing. The Simpson brand of automotive and motorsports products has existed 1959. Plaintiff SFI was established to develop and administer minimum performance standards for the automotive aftermarket and motorsports industries, including standards for specialty/performance racing equipment.

Simpson offers for sale the SIMPSON® Hybrid PRO Rage™ head and neck restraint. Simpson indicates that this product is one of the few such devices to be certified under a special classification, SFI SPEC 38.1, for use in NASCAR competitions.

Defendants Wagoner and Carthcart have been accused of engaging in the business of providing specialty/performance racing equipment, including head and neck restraints that are counterfeit versions of Simpson products. Plaintiffs contend that Wagoner is offering counterfeit head and neck restraints through ebay.com. Plaintiffs allege that Cathcart offers counterfeit head and neck restraints via the website racingjunk.com.

These restraints, Plaintiffs contend, bear trademarks owned by Simpson, including the SIMPSON® federally registered trademark as well as the HUTCHENS Hybrid PRO™ and Hybrid PRO™ common law trademarks.

The accused products also allegedly bear a label that falsely states, “This product designed & manufactured by Safety Solutions, Inc. PATENT NO.: 6931669; other patents pending.” According to Plaintiffs, the alleged counterfeiting activities of Defendants also constitute patent infringement.

In this lawsuit, filed by patent and trademark lawyers for Plaintiffs, the following causes of action are listed:

• Trademark Infringement
• Unfair Competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); False Designation of Origin; False or Misleading Advertising
• Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices under N.C. [North Carolina] Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1
• Patent Infringment [sic]

• Common Law Fraud

Plaintiffs ask for a finding in their favor on each of the counts alleged, including a finding that the conduct was knowing and willful, and entry against each Defendant jointly and severally. Plaintiffs seek costs, attorneys’ fees and damages, including enhanced damages, as well as injunctive relief.

This federal trademark complaint was initially filed in the Western District of North Carolina in February 2015. In May 2015, District Judge Richard Voorhees ordered it to be transferred to the Northern District of Indiana, finding that the North Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants.