Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

October 27, 2023

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

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.

October 23, 2023

HealthSmart Foods Files Suit Over SWEET NOTHINGS Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Plaintiff HealthSmart Foods, Inc., has brought a Trademark infringement suit against Menlo Park, California Defendants Beth Porter and Sweet Nothings, Inc. In addition to infringement claims, the suit also alleges Unfair Competition, Trademark Dilution, and Deceptive Trade Practices.

According to the complaint, HealthSmart has been manufacturing, marketing, and selling health food snacks that include a line of chocolates, candies, nut butter food snacks with chocolate/peanut butter flavors, and chocolate/banana/peanut butter flavors, under the SWEET NOTHINGS Trademark (registration no. 5,306,700). HealthSmart claims that it has marketed and sold these products on its website, on Amazon.com, and in stores across the country.

The Plaintiff’s suit claims that the “Defendants have used a mark [SWEET NOTHINGS] identical in appearance, sound, and meaning for substantially similar products.” HealthSmart alleges that the Sweet Nothings, LLC, owner, Beth Porter, used the mark even though she became aware of the similarities when the United States Patent and Trademark Office twice refused to issue Porter a Trademark Registration for the SWEET NOTHINGS Mark due to the likelihood of confusion with HealthSmart’s SWEET NOTHINGS Mark. To remedy this, the Plaintiff claims, Porter submitted statements that her products would be exclusively frozen, fruit would be the primary ingredient, and they would contain chia seeds, flax seeds, and dates. However, HealthSmart argues that Porter has since manufactured and sold “Nut Butter Bites,” which is a candy that is not frozen, nor does it contain fruit as a primary ingredient, nor is it comprised of chia seeds, flax seeds, or dates.

October 20, 2023

Multiple Patents Allegedly Infringed Upon In Suit between Rogue Fitness and Bells of Steel USA, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Columbus, Ohio – Plaintiff Coulter Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Rogue Fitness (“Rogue”) filed suit against Bells of Steel USA Inc., for alleged patent infringement of its fitness products in Bell’s sporting goods stores, including their Indianapolis, Indiana, Bells of Steel USA Showroom.

According to the complaint, Rogue Fitness owns several design and utility patents for fitness equipment, including Patent No. 11,173,337: “Weightlifting Assembly and Weight Rack Including Weightlifting Assembly”, Patent No. 10,226,661: “Weightlifting Rack Assembly and Wall Mount Bracket for a Weightlifting Rack Assembly,” Patent No. D992,063: “Wall Mounted Exercise Rack,” Patent No. D961,020: “Weight Plate,” and Patent No. RE49,513: “Barbell.” Rogue states that all these patented products are listed on the company’s website for the public to view at any time.

In the suit, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has been purposely advertising, marketing, selling, manufacturing, and distributing products that are infringing on Rogue’s lawfully held patents. Rogue specifically identified 8 of the products Bells advertises as infringing upon the Plaintiff’s patents in their design and/or utility. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant relies on “making cheap copies of products and designs created by others and only later dealing with patent infringement.”

October 17, 2023

Patent Office Issued 297 Patents to Indiana Entities in August 2023

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 297 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in August 2023:

Patent Number	Patent Title
US 11739342 B2	Nucleotide sequences and polypeptides encoded thereby useful for modifying plant characteristics
US 11739561 B2	Electronic door with key-in-lever feature
US 11739053 B2	P62-ZZ chemical inhibitor
US 11737896 B2	Wirelessly-powered implantable EMG recording system
US 11737944 B2	Removable customizable casket panel

October 16, 2023

1927 Enters the Public Domain

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

United States – The year 1927 brought with it musical compositions by the likes of Duke Ellington, cinematic masterpieces by film greats like Alfred Hitchcock, who produced his first thriller in 1927, The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, and pieces of classic literature, such as To the Lighthouse, by Virginia Woolf. All the authors, composers, and directors of those pieces, along with others like them, wisely had their works copyrighted, giving them exclusive rights over how (and by whom) their work could be used.

However, January 1^st of each year marks the expiration of another year of historical copyrights, and 2023 ushered works from the year 1927 into the public domain, making them eligible for extensive use without permission or royalties. Although copyright expirations may mean a loss of income and control for the original authors/producers of the material, the public domain gives current artists opportunities to draw inspiration and build on previous ideas. It gives libraries, historians, and museums the right to collect and preserve documents and media that would otherwise be destroyed or remain unknown. It also makes educational materials less expensive and readily available, because without factoring in the cost of copyright permissions, publishers and teachers can reproduce and distribute copies of materials at much lower costs to students and taxpayers.

October 13, 2023

165 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in September 2023

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 165 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September 2023 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Reg. Number		Word Mark
7176226		FLYDREAM FEATHERS
7178103		NUTRAMIGEN
7175120		SCRAPS ROOTED IN COMPOST ROOTED IN COMPOST ROOTED IN COMPOST
7175088		SCRAPS ROOTED IN COMPOST
7175083		SCRAPS
7174815		UNBOX WHAT’S POSSIBLE

October 13, 2023

Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar Congratulated on his Seventh Circuit Nomination

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar

HAMMOND, Indiana – On October 10, 2023, Chief Judge Holly A. Brady congratulated Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar on his nomination by President Joseph R. Biden to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. If confirmed, Judge Kolar will fill the vacancy left behind by the death of Judge Michael S. Kanne.

In her statement about Judge Kolar, Chief Judge Brady wrote that the judges of the Northern District of Indiana are extremely proud of Magistrate Judge Kolar for being nominated to the Seventh Circuit. She also remarked that Judge Kolar “has been a tremendous asset as a member of the judiciary for the Northern District [of Indiana]…his thoughtful and humble approach to the matters pending before him will surely be missed by the bench, the bar and litigants, the judges anxiously await Judge Kolar’s much deserved confirmation.”

October 9, 2023

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Shift Restaurant and Bar for Cable and Satellite Piracy

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Feasterville, Pennsylvania – Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. is suing Lawrenceburg, Indiana Defendants Shift Restaurant and Bar, Matt Euson, and Nicholas Roberts for allegedly committing “Cable Piracy” and “Satellite Piracy” as is defined in the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 553 and U.S.C. § 605).

According to the complaint, Joe Hand Promotions is a company specializing in the licensing and distribution of premier sporting events to commercial establishments. Joe Hand states that it holds exclusive licensing rights to many televised sporting events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championships®. Since obtaining the rights to the Ultimate Fighting Championships in 2001, the Plaintiff claims they have entered into agreements with various U.S. restaurants, bars, lounges, clubhouses, etc., who have purchased the pay-per-view rights to commercially broadcast the Championships and other similar sporting events to their patrons.

On January 18, 2020 and again on August 15, 2020, two different Ultimate Fighting Championship fights were scheduled to be broadcast on pay-per-view television (Ultimate Fighting Championship® 246: Conor McGregor vs. Donald “Cowboy” Cerrone and Ultimate Fighting Championship® 252: Stipe Miocic vs. Daniel Cormier). The Plaintiff alleges that on both nights, the Defendants chose to circumvent the Plaintiff’s licensing rights and commercially broadcast the fights at Shift Restaurant without purchasing permission to do so. The Plaintiff claims the Defendants pirated the programming and infringed upon their right as the rightful owner of the distribution license.

October 6, 2023

Nickels and Dimes Goes Full Tilt on Noah’s Arcade in Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Celina, Texas – Plaintiff, Nickels and Dimes Incorporated is suing LaPorte, Indiana company, Noah’s Arcade, LLC d/b/a Full Tilt, for infringement of its federally registered trademark TILT, in association with arcade, amusement, and entertainment services, under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Nickels and Dimes opened their first TILT arcade in 1977, inside the Six Flags Mall, in Arlington, TX, and has since owned and operated 200 TILT arcades in the U.S. Nickels and Dimes states that it then began using the Trademark TILT STUDIO in 2010, and the TILTED 10 Trademark in 2021, in association with arcade games and indoor entertainment.

The Defendant, Noah’s Arcade, allegedly opened their arcade in 2022 under the mark FULL TILT and has been accused of using the mark in their marketing and advertising, to which the Plaintiff claims infringement of their trademarks TILT, TILT STUDIO, and TILTED 10. The Plaintiff argues that the products sold under Noah’s FULL TILT mark are identical or highly similar to those that Nickels and Dimes sell under their trademarks. In addition, the Plaintiff contends that Noah’s Domain Name is similar to Plaintiff’s TILT STUDIO and TILTED 10 marks, which could potentially cause confusion among the customer base who may assume an affiliation between the two entities.

October 2, 2023

Teva Pharmaceutical’s Patent Infringement Verdict Against Eli Lilly Overturned

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Massachusetts – Judge Allison Burroughs sided with Eli Lilly in a dispute with Teva Pharmaceuticals, overturning a $176.5 million jury verdict that had previously been awarded to Teva in a patent infringement suit regarding the two companies’ development of drugs with antibodies capable of treating headache disorders associated with calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”).

According to the original complaint, Teva’s drug (Ajovy) and Lilly’s drug (Emgality) were similar in the ways in which they work, and they were both approved by the FDA only 13 days apart in September 2018. However, Court documents show that Lilly contended that the two antibodies used in the drugs were different and, therefore, no infringement existed.

After a thorough examination of the case, Judge Burroughs agreed that the two drugs were distinct and that Teva’s patents were too expansive. Judge Burroughs stated in her ruling that, “Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, asserted claims are too broad.” She subsequently overturned the original jury verdict awarded to Teva writing in her ruling that “The Court does not reach this decision nor overturn a jury verdict lightly.”