Articles Posted in Unfair Competition

Phocatox-BlogPhoto-300x81Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Phocatox Technologies, LLC of Carmel, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Jerry D. Wiersig of Foley, Alabama, Todd M. Hoffman of Edmond, Oklahoma, BioClean Remediation, LLC of Foley, Alabama, and BioClean Remediation, LLC of Edmond Oklahoma infringed the rights in United States Trademark Registration No. 3,351,509 for “BioSweep”.  Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and judgment, including statutory damages and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff operates under the business name “BioSweep” and manufactures and licenses odor removal and decontamination equipment. The name “BioSweep” is trademarked by the Plaintiff under registration No. 3,351,509.

Continue reading

2018-05-04-BlogPhotoIndianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Muscle Flex, Inc. of Los Angeles, California filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Simon Property Group, L.P, and Simon Property Group, Inc., both Delaware corporations; Matt Murat Dagli, an individual who resides in Texas and owner of New Purple LLC, a Texas limited liability company, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration No. 4,188,135 for “WORLD OF LEGGINGS.” Plaintiff is seeking damages, judgment of infringement, an injunction on the Defendant’s use of the trademark, and recall and destruction of all infringing items.

Plaintiff is a California-based corporation that operates retail stores that specialize in women’s leggings and clothes. These items are marketed under the name “World of Leggings.” According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has invested considerable time and money into developing the World of Leggings brand.

Continue reading

2018-04-30-BlogPhoto-1-300x56Fort Wayne, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, ASW, LLC of Columbia City, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Frederick Bisson, of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Numbers 3,556,429 for “American SportWorks”, and 5,138,550 for “American LandMaster”. Plaintiff is seeking damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and all other relief just and proper.

Plaintiff is an Indiana-based manufacturer of recreational off-road vehicles, ATVs, UTVs, and go-karts. According to the complaint, Defendant is a Canadian citizen and the owner of the website www.americansportworksparts.com.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Luxottica Group S.p.A of Mason, Ohio and Oakley, Inc., of2018-03-21-BlogPhoto-300x186 Foothill Ranch, California filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Avni Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Delaware BP of Osgood, Indiana, Pari, Inc. d/b/a Batesville Food Mart of Batesville, Indiana, Rani Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Batesville Shell, and Sai Petroleum Inc. d/b/a New Point Food Mart of New Point, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Nos. 650,499, 1,093,658, 1,726,955, 1,080,886, 1,490,305, 2,718,485, 1,320,460, and 3,522,603 all with the Owner of Luxottica Group S.p.A.  Oakley, Inc., is the owner of Trademark Registration Nos. 1,521,599, 1,984,501, 1,990,262, 3,331,124, and 3,365,728.  Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Luxottica is an Italian-based corporation that manufacturers and sells luxury eyewear under the “Ray-Ban” trademark. Oakley is a subsidiary of Luxottica that also produces high-end eyewear under the “Oakley” name.

Continue reading

Pic1-300x273Marilyn D. Mintz of Northern California, had filed a Trademark infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California alleging that Subaru of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation with place of Business in the State of New Jersey, infringed a phrase and design trademarked by Plaintiff.

Defendant Subaru, which has a large manufacturing presence in Lafayette, Indiana, ran an ad campaign with the slogan “Share the Love.” Plaintiff alleged that this infringed her trademarked phrase, “A World of Love, for You and Those You Love.” In the ad campaign, Plaintiff also used a graphic design showing a hand with a heart on it. Plaintiff alleged that this infringed a similar design she trademarked.

Continue reading

BlogPhotoIndianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Audiosurplus, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Nos. 978,949, 2,917,215, and 3,863,511.  Plaintiff is seeking judgment, Audiosurplus’s profits and damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiff is an Indiana-based audio equipment company that manufactures high-end speakers, headphones, subwoofers, and a variety of other items audio items. Defendant is an online retailer that sells audio equipment on Amazon. The three trademarks involved in this case are for the “KLIPSCH” brand name. Plaintiff sells its products across the country through contractually authorized retailers. Plaintiff is suing because Defendant is not an authorized Klipsch retailer, but has allegedly been selling Klipsch products through its online store without permission.

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

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

South Bend, IndianaJudge Robert L. Miller, Jr. of the Northern District of Indiana dismissed claims concerning trade dress infringement.

In this Indiana trademark lawsuit, Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana sued Winnebago Industries, Inc. of Forest City, Iowa and its subsidiary Winnebago of Indiana, LLC alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false and misleading representations.

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC filed a partial motion to dismiss with the court, arguing that Forest River had neither sufficiently identified the features that constituted the claimed trade dress nor provided any factual support for its assertion that such features were non-functional.

The court noted that “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678.  The claim is deemed plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Untitled-2

In this litigation, such a showing required that Forest River define its trade dress.  It must also plead sufficient facts to show that the claimed trade dress is nonfunctional, has acquired secondary meaning and that a likelihood of confusion exists between its trade dress and Winnebago’s trade dress.

The court agreed with Winnebago, concluding that Plaintiff had relied on “conclusory and meaningless” assertions in its pleadings. Consequently, it granted Winnebago’s motion and dismissed without prejudice Forest River’s claims concerning trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) as well as similar claims made under common law.

Overhauser Law Offices represented Winnebago in obtaining this successful order dismissing the trade dress claims.

Continue reading

NCAA-300x202Indianapolis, Indiana –  National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.

NCAA’s trademarks, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office (“USPTO”), pertain to the following uses of FINAL FOUR and MARCH MADNESS:

MARK GOODS/SERVICES REG NO. & DATE
FINAL FOUR Association services, namely, conducting annual basketball tournaments at the college level 1,488,836;

May 17, 1988

FINAL FOUR Promoting the goods and services of others by allowing sponsors to affiliate their goods and services with collegiate championship tournaments 2,377,720;

Aug. 15, 2000

FINAL FOUR Printed matter, namely, guides in the field of sports; Luggage, namely, portfolios, backpacks, duffle bags, rolling luggage, garment bags, briefcases, athletic bags and tote bags; and Entertainment services, Namely, providing information in the field of college sports via the Internet 2,964,266;

June 28, 2006

MARCH MADNESS Entertainment services, namely, presentation of athletic and entertainment personalities in a panel forum 1,571,340;

Dec. 12, 1989

MARCH MADNESS Entertainment in the nature of basketball tournaments between college teams 2,485,443;

Sept. 4, 2001

MARCH MADNESS Telecommunications services; namely the transmission of voice, data, images, audio, video and information via local and long distance telephone, satellite and global computer networks; leasing telecommunications equipment, components, systems and supplies; electronic mail services; telephone voice messaging services; providing multiple-user access to global computer networks to transmit, receive and otherwise access and use information of general interest to consumers; web casting of athletic games, tournaments, exhibitions, and events via the Internet 3,025,527;

Dec. 13, 2005

Defendants in this Indiana trademark lawsuit are Kizzang LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada and Robert Alexander, the founder and owner of the business.  They are in the business of providing nationwide Internet-based promotions that award prizes for predicting the results of sporting events.  Plaintiff states that they have branded their NCAA-related services using the mark FINAL 3.

Untitled-300x160

Plaintiff further asserts that Defendants had planned to adopt APRIL MADNESS for the same services as FINAL 3, but that they delayed doing so upon learning that NCAA objected to their use of FINAL 3.  Kizzang has applied for federal trademark registrations for both marks with the USPTO.

Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiff contend that Defendants adopted both names because of their similarity to the marks used by NCAA and that Defendants did so with the intention of exploiting the goodwill associated with FINAL FOUR and MARCH MADNESS.  In this lawsuit, filed in federal court, the following claims are made:

  • Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1114
  • Trademark Infringement Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
  • Trademark Dilution Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125
  • Common Law Unfair Competition

Plaintiff asks for various remedies from the court, including a judgment of willful and intentional violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125 and Indiana common law; injunctive relief including restraining Defendants from further use of FINAL 3 and APRIL MADNESS as well as an order that the USPTO deny registration for the marks; damages, including treble damages; and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Contact Information