Unfair Competition

February 24, 2025

Who’s Got The Case? Unfair Competition Suit Between Catalyst Medium Four Inc. (Smartish) and Scooch, LLC

Catalyst Medium Four Inc. (operating as Smartish) has filed a lawsuit against Scooch, LLC, accusing them of unfair competition. Smartish claims that Scooch has been selling mobile phone cases that closely resemble Smartish’s distinctive designs, particularly those from its popular “Wallet Slayer” series. The lawsuit argues that Scooch is trying to take advantage of Smartish’s years of innovation and marketing efforts by selling cases with similar designs and packaging.

According to the Complaint, Smartish, based in Austin, Texas, has been designing and selling mobile phone cases since 2011. The unique design of its “Wallet Slayer” series, with a thumb-out cut on the left for easy pocket access and a card slot on the right, has led consumers to associate this feature with Smartish. The Wallet Slayer has been a key product, with hundreds of thousands of units sold each year, backed by millions spent on advertising across platforms like Amazon, Walmart, and eBay.

Smartish argues that Scooch’s Moneymate case closely mimics the design and look of the Wallet Slayer, creating a risk of consumer confusion. The lawsuit claims that Scooch’s product may mislead customers into thinking it is connected to or endorsed by Smartish. The marketing images used by Scooch are also said to closely resemble those used by Smartish, adding to the potential for confusion.

February 14, 2025

BTL Industries Files Lawsuit Against Be Minked Beauty for Patent and Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

BTL Industries, Inc. (BTL) has filed a lawsuit against Be Minked Beauty & Company LLC and its owner, Britney Humphrey, accusing them of patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. BTL, based in Massachusetts, develops and sells technology used for body-contouring treatments. Their EMSCULPT® and EMSCULPT NEO® devices use electromagnetic energy to tone muscles and have become leaders in the aesthetic industry.

According to the Complaint BTL holds a patent (Patent No. 10,478,634) for the technology used in these devices and has multiple registered trademarks for names like EMSCULPT® and HIFEM®. The company alleges that Be Minked is selling a device called the “Emsculpt RF Machine” that infringes on BTL’s patent. Additionally, BTL says Be Minked is using their trademarked names, such as “EMSCULPT” and “HIFEM,” without permission on their website.

BTL reportedly sent Be Minked a cease & desist letter about the infringement but says the company ignored it. BTL is now asking the court to stop Be Minked from using its patented technology and trademarks, and they want financial damages, including a minimum of $125,000 for the alleged patent violation. They’re also asking for a permanent ban on Be Minked using any of BTL’s trademarks or confusingly similar names and for the company to pay for BTL’s legal fees. BTL is also seeking to shut down Be Minked’s website and freeze their bank accounts.

January 24, 2025

Eric Emanuel’s EE Holding Group Takes Legal Action Over Counterfeit Scandal, Targeting Social Media Reseller

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Carmel, Indiana – EE Holding Group LLC has filed a lawsuit against PDGROWTH LLC and Patrick D. Garton. The claims include trademark counterfeiting, infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under both federal and common law.

Led by designer Eric Emanuel, the plaintiff asserts ownership of trademarks such as ERIC EMANUEL and the EE logo: . These trademarks have been in use since 2014 and are associated with high-quality sportswear, particularly the signature EE mesh shorts.

Defendant Garton, who operates under the Instagram handle “pd.resells,” is accused of selling counterfeit goods that bear the plaintiff’s trademarks. These goods, sourced from China, are marketed as indistinguishable replicas. Garton sells these products through social media, the website https://thesupplyr.com/, and other platforms, allegedly profiting significantly from these sales. The plaintiff claims Garton not only sells counterfeit items but also teaches others how to profit from similar activities.

January 6, 2025

Delta Faucet Fights Back: Lawsuit Against Amazon Storefront Targets Unauthorized Sales, Trademark Violations and Brand Damage

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Delta Faucet Company, a prominent manufacturer of kitchen and bathroom fixtures, alleges that Justin and Andrew Bundrick engaged in unauthorized sales of Delta-branded products via Amazon storefronts “SummitMerch” (previously “BunjiSolutions”) and “A.B.Sales”. The company claims these products failed to meet their quality standards and did not include the official warranty, thereby violating trademark laws under the Lanham Act and constituting unfair competition.

Delta contends that the defendants’ sales of defective or subpar goods resulted in negative reviews, consumer confusion, and damage to Delta’s reputation. Despite receiving cease-and-desist letters, the defendants reportedly continued to sell non-genuine products. Test purchases indicated improper packaging and the absence of Delta’s warranty.

Delta argues that these unauthorized sales amount to trademark infringement and unfair competition, as the products differ significantly from authentic Delta items. The company is seeking injunctive relief, asserting that these sales harm its brand value and erode consumer trust.

December 13, 2024

Identity Crisis: My Market, LLC Fights Batth Market’s Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

My Market, LLC, (Plaintiff) an Indiana-based convenience store operator, has initiated legal proceedings against Batth Markets, Inc. and Chhaterpal Singh (Defendants) for the unauthorized use of its trademarked business name. The lawsuit, filed under the Lanham Act and related Indiana state laws, addresses issues of trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. My Market claims that Batth Markets’ use of the name “My Market” has caused confusion in the marketplace, posing a threat to the reputation My Market has built through years of branding and business development.

My Market, LLC has been operating as a convenience store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and holds a federal trademark for the service mark “MY MARKET FISH · CHICKEN SANDWICHES · SHRIMP” (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,935,101), which was granted on December 27, 2022. This trademark is used to identify My Market’s services, particularly in the food industry. According to the complaint, on July 9, 2024, My Market’s counsel uncovered that Batth Markets had fraudulently obtained a Certificate of Assumed Business Name, allowing them to operate under the name “My Market” in Kingston, Indiana. This certificate was obtained through an allegedly forged letter, which gave Chhaterpal Singh permission to use the “My Market” name. The letter, purportedly signed by Mark owner, Mohammad A. Ghaffar, was neither authorized nor signed by him, and he claims no knowledge of it being filed.

The lawsuit claims that Batth Markets’ use of the “My Market” name infringes upon My Market’s federally registered trademark. My Market argues that the two businesses are highly similar in name, appearance, and the products they offer, including fried chicken, sandwiches, and other convenience store goods. This, according to the complaint, is likely to confuse customers into believing that Batth Markets is affiliated with or endorsed by My Market. The complaint further states that Batth Markets’ actions are deliberate and exploit My Market’s established goodwill, a claim supported by Batth Markets’ acknowledgment in the fraudulent letter that Ghaffar’s consent was needed to use the name. My Market also asserts that this confusion has resulted in financial harm, including lost sales and reputational damage.

December 6, 2024

Protecting the LEGACY: Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Legacy Family Chiropractic

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Legacy Chiropractic, LLC, has filed a complaint against Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims. The complaint centers around Defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of the “LEGACY” trademark, which Plaintiff asserts is integral to its business and reputation. Since 2018, Plaintiff has operated Legacy Chiropractic in Shipshewana, Indiana, building a strong reputation for quality care, and the LEGACY mark has become a valuable asset attracting patients from across the U.S. and Canada.

The complaint states that despite Plaintiff’s established use of the LEGACY mark, Defendant, based in Warsaw, Indiana, began offering chiropractic services under the same name. In late 2019 or early 2020, Rebekah Franklin, the wife of Defendant’s CEO, contacted Plaintiff to inquire about purchasing the trademark, but Plaintiff declined. Defendant subsequently opened its clinic in March 2020, continuing to use the LEGACY mark. Defendant also registered the domain mylegacyfamilychiro.com in June 2020, incorporating the mark further into its marketing. Plaintiff claims that this has caused market confusion and that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s prior trademark rights.

Plaintiff’s legal claims include violations of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, along with claims of cybersquatting due to Defendant’s use of the domain name. Plaintiff also seeks relief under Indiana state law for unfair competition and requests the cancellation of Defendant’s state trademark registration for “LEGACY FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC,” arguing it was obtained in bad faith.

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 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.

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.