By

 The US Trademark Office issued the following 135 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in July, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

    Reg. Number Mark Click to View
1 4,002,571 LILLY FOR BETTER HEALTH VIEW
2 4,002,545 FLOWALKING VIEW
3 4,002,518 MIDWEST WIND & SOLAR RENEWABLE ENERGY EXPERTS VIEW
4 4,002,355 IVL PRODUCTS VIEW
5 4,002,351 RED SPOT VIEW
6 4,002,305 MID-AMERICA SCIENCE PARK VIEW
7 4,002,304 MID-AMERICA SCIENCE PARK VIEW
8 4,002,279 ORTHOINC. ORTHODONTICS INCORPORATED VIEW
9 4,002,126 GLOWFEST VIEW
10 4,002,104 MUSKEGON LUMBERJACKS VIEW
11 4,002,062 VIRTIQUE HEALTH VIEW
12 4,002,049 QUEST BOOKS VIEW
13 4,002,048 BASS BOAT SAVER VIEW
14 4,001,986 M MIASA AUTOMOTIVE LLC VIEW
15 4,001,964 ENVIRO-FILM VIEW
16 4,004,120 ADVANCED CENTER FOR CANCER CARE VIEW
17 4,001,776 MOMMA’S OLD-FASHIONED APPLESAUCE VIEW
18 4,003,971 SQUIRREL DADDY VIEW
19 4,001,673 PROXIMITY VIEW
20 4,001,656 KLASSICAL KEYS VIEW
21 4,003,929 CENTIER RETIRERIGHT VIEW
22 4,003,910 CANE EXPRESSIONS VIEW
23 4,003,881 FLEXIVAP VIEW
24 4,003,854 RUNHELPER VIEW
25 4,001,388 SHOW THE DRIVE VIEW
26 4,001,384 {DESIGN} VIEW
27 4,001,307 FUNKY MONKEY FRUIT THAT CRUNCHES! VIEW
28 4,001,000 RECOGNITION BY DESIGN VIEW
29 4,000,994 FAMILIES IN GLOBAL TRANSITION VIEW
30 4,003,664 FORM-A-GROOVE VIEW
31 4,000,788 FLEXWHITE VIEW
32 4,000,787 FLEXWHITE VIEW
33 4,000,770 AMERIVERI VIEW
34 4,000,022 PARTNER SERVICESWEB VIEW
35 3,998,239 STEPTECH VIEW
36 4,000,008 SUSTAINABLE STEAM VIEW
37 4,000,002 A PLACE FOR FILM VIEW
38 3,997,902 NO UGLIES ALLOWED VIEW
39 3,997,734 INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS. OUTSTANDING SERVICE. GREAT PEOPLE. VIEW
40 3,997,695 IMPACT VIEW
41 3,997,541 SALUTING AMERICA’S GREATNESS VIEW
42 3,997,540 {DESIGN} VIEW
43 3,997,539 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION VIEW
44 3,997,488 C-FLEX VIEW
45 3,997,377 {DESIGN} VIEW
46 3,997,322 BALL PROJECT VIEW
47 3,997,036 LINCOLN DENTALCONNECT VIEW
48 3,996,832 {DESIGN} VIEW
49 3,996,803 NU NORMAL PRODUCTIONS VIEW
50 3,999,801 V-FORCE VIEW
51 3,996,587 DEFINING EXPERIENCES VIEW
52 3,999,776 KOALA VIEW
53 3,996,459 BETWEEN FRIENDS AND FAMILY VIEW
54 3,996,399 STOR-MATE VIEW
55 3,999,616 KEEPSAKE THREADS VIEW
56 3,996,318 RILEY HOSPITAL VIEW
57 3,996,315 RILEY HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN VIEW
58 3,996,314 RILEY VIEW
59 3,996,275 DON’T TEXT & DRIVE PARKVIEW TRAUMA CENTER VIEW
60 3,996,249 CHEEKY COUTURE VIEW
61 3,996,218 HOUSE OF GREENS VIEW
62 3,999,379 TERRA LOC VIEW
63 3,994,083 FIBROGUIDE VIEW
64 3,993,881 STREETSLIDES VIEW
65 3,993,743 ULTRAFLAME VIEW
66 3,993,278 RUFFIES VIEW
67 3,993,222 MY MD HOUSE CALLS LLC VIEW
68 3,995,189 CD HORIZON BALANC VIEW
69 3,995,388 SEEDWEIGH VIEW
70 3,995,166 WAVE CRADLE VIEW
71 3,995,161 EVRI-GLOVE VIEW
72 3,995,374 THE HOOSIER FARMER VIEW
73 3,992,447 VILLA LUXE VIEW
74 3,992,424 PURE EATERY FRESH HONEST FOOD VIEW
75 3,995,360 GIRL … VIEW
76 3,995,075 COMFORT CRADLES VIEW
77 3,995,043 THEMPRA XL VIEW
78 3,992,208 THE IRISH LION VIEW
79 3,992,069 MOTIONDYNAMICS VIEW
80 3,990,137 QUEEN OF PINUPS VIEW
81 3,989,973 MIASA VIEW
82 3,989,947 MIKE SOLD ME! VIEW
83 3,989,935 MIKE SOLD ME! VIEW
84 3,989,871 INWARD OASIS VIEW
85 3,989,785 ROBOTWORX VIEW
86 3,989,751 THERE’S A PARTY IN EVERY PAIR. VIEW
87 3,989,673 QUEEN OF PINUPS VIEW
88 3,989,484 TRUSTINDIANA VIEW
89 3,989,483 TRUSTINDIANA VIEW
90 3,991,257 CSTAR VIEW
91 3,989,279 NYHART VIEW
92 3,989,217 DJ SEGAL VIEW
93 3,989,175 WORKSITEUL2 VIEW
94 3,989,036 SOLAS RAY VIEW
95 3,989,035 SOLAS RAY VIEW
96 3,988,862 GRENADIERS INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTHEAST VIEW
97 3,991,240 ENDURALOCK VIEW
98 3,991,333 BETTER BROWNING BAKEWARE VIEW
99 3,991,153 SONNET VIEW
100 3,991,040 PALIBRIO VIEW
101 3,990,980 JEAN HARLOW VIEW
102 3,990,965 PERFINITY VIEW
103 4,003,281 THE HOT-HEDD VIEW
104 4,000,340 LAS-TIK VIEW
105 4,003,126 I S VIEW
106 4,003,125 INNATE SLEEP VIEW
107 4,003,037 REZSHIELD VIEW
108 4,003,034 GARDENMAJIK VIEW
109 4,002,944 TANGENT POINT MEDIA VIEW
110 4,002,943 TANGENT POINT MEDIA VIEW
111 4,002,914 PADS PROFESSIONALS AGAINST DOPING IN SPORTS VIEW
112 3,987,631 READY NOW FOR WHAT’S NEXT VIEW
113 3,990,443 APPLEWAYS VIEW
114 3,999,065 G SERIES PRO 03 RECOVER VIEW
115 3,998,973 AN ATTENTION AGENCY VIEW
116 3,995,645 TERRA SPICE VIEW
117 3,998,624 TROPICAL RAINBOWS VIEW
118 3,998,548 IRMI VIEW
119 3,994,679 ALERGFIN VIEW
120 3,994,636 THINGS EVERY KID SHOULD KNOW VIEW
121 3,994,508 BRONZE RHAPSODY VIEW
122 3,994,505 VSG VEHICLE SERVICE GROUP VIEW
123 3,991,531 MOUNTAIN GLACIER VIEW
124 3,994,385 ACTIFY THE WIRELESS ACTIVATION LEADER VIEW
125 3,994,384 ACTIFY VIEW
126 3,990,816 PELOTON VIEW
127 3,990,662 GENERAL TACTICAL VEHICLES VIEW
128 3,990,657 ACCELERATE-OR VIEW
129 3,990,607 REVOLUTION SERIES VIEW
130 4,002,733 PORCH2PORCH VIEW
131 3,991,443 APEX ENERGY SOLUTIONS VIEW
132 3,990,375 B2CATALYST VIEW
133 3,990,283 RISE ‘N SHINE VIEW
134 3,998,320 SOLARBOOST VIEW
135 3,994,138 H2X MOMENTUM VIEW

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign trademark searches, trademark applications and assists with enforcing trademarks via infringement litigation and licensing.

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign trademark searches, trademark applications and assists with enforcing trademarks via infringement litigation and licensing.

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Indiana, like eighteen other states, has a right to publicity law that can be described as the right to control the commercial use of one’s identity. The right to publicity, sometimes called personality rights, are state law rights, unlike most intellectual property rights, which are federal rights. According to Wikipedia, Indiana’s right to publicity is considered to be the most far reaching right to publicity law in the world. Indiana’s indiana_seal.gifcurrent right of publicity law, I.C. 32-36-1 et seq., was enacted in 1994. Indiana’s law grants a proprietary interest to a personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, distinctive appearance, gesture or mannerisms where the personality has commercial value. The law requires permission before another uses one’s personality for commercial purposes and provides for damages if the personality is used without consent. Rightofpublicity.com has an interesting blog entry on the history of the right to publicity.

Indiana Intellectual Property Law News blogged last month about the recent decision of the Southern District Court of Indiana in the Dillinger case. The Indiana Court of Appeals has also examined a case involving the right of publicity and coincidentally also concerning the John Dillinger personality. In that case, Phillips v. Scalf, 778 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), Scalf alleged he owned the Dillinger right to publicity and that Phillips was operating a restaurant in Steuben County that utilized the Dillinger personality without permission. This decision, however, involved the question of venue and did not substantively examine the right to publicity statute. Indeed, it appears that neither the Indiana Supreme Court nor the Indiana Court of Appeals have issued substantive decisions on the Indiana Right to Publicity.

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – There have been further updates to the Hard Drive Productions case in the Southern District of Indianathat Intellectual Property Law News has been closely following. The Hard Drive case is one of three similar copyright infringement lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana all involving file sharing of adult entertainment videos via BitTorrent. BitTorrentPicture.JPGThe other two are the Boy Racer case and the First Time Videos case.

In one development, an attorney has filed a motion to dismiss and motion to quash subpoena on behalf of one of the John Does, who remains unnamed but has his or her I.P. address listed on the motion. The motion to dismiss argues that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction since the John Doe does not live in or have sufficient contacts with Indiana and that the defendants have been misjoined since none of the controversies arise out of the same facts or occurrences. The motion also argues that a subpoena that has been served on internet service provider Comcast requesting the name and identifying information for this John Doe is unduly burdensome.

In another development, the Court has ordered the authors of the anonymous letters, subject of an Intellectual Property Law Newsblog last month, to appear before the court and show cause why their letters should not be stricken from the record. If the authors do not appear by September 9, the Court will strike their letters from the case docket.

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – A trademark infringement lawsuit filed in Hamilton County, Indiana Superior Court was removed to Southern District of Indiana. Trademark lawyers for Saeilo Enterprises, Inc. of Pearl River, New York had filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Hamilton County Superior Court alleging Scottwerx LLC of LaCrescenta, California infringed trademark registration no.2,885,628 for the mark TOMMY GUN which has been registered with the US Trademark Office.

The complaint alleges that Scottwerx has manufactured, produced and sold replica firearm kits that bear Saeilo’s registered trademarks without authorization from Saeilo. Gun.jpgThe complaint has attached a picture from Scottwerx’s website of the allegedly infringing product. The complaint alleges Indiana courts have jurisdiction because Scottwerx offers the product for sale in Indiana. However, the complaint does not mention any specific sales in Indiana and only refers to Scottwerx’s website. Saeilo’s complaint asserts claims of federal trademark infringement, federal trademark dilution, false designation of origin, false advertising, trade dress infringement, common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, conversion, forgery, counterfeiting, and deception. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, damages, treble damages, profits, attorney’s fees and costs.

Practice Tip: Last month, Saeilo filed a very similar trademark infringement lawsuit  in Hamilton County that was also removed to federal court.  Indiana Intellectual Property Law News blogged about that case here.  That case alleged that Buzz Bee Toys infringed the same trademarks that are at issue in this lawsuit.   According to PACER, trademark attorneys have reached a settlement in the Buzz Bee case.  The terms of the settlement are undisclosed.


Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Eli Lilly Company of Indianapolis, Indiana lilly.jpgfiled a patent infringement judgment suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging APP Pharmaceuticals LLC of Schaumburg, Illinois infringed patent no.7,772,209 , Antifolate combination therapies, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The complaint states that APP has filed an abbreviated new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration seeking to sell a generic version of the drug ALIMTA, which is patented by Lilly, prior to the expiration of the patent. Lilly alleges that APP will begin to market and sell the generic drug. ALIMTA is a chemotherapy drug used to treat mesothelioma and other lung cancers. Lilly’s patent attorneys contend that the marketing and sale of APP’sAPP.jpg generic version will infringe Lilly’s patent. The complaint alleges two counts of patent infringement and seeks a judgment of infringement, injunction, costs and attorney’s fees.

Practice Tip: This case has been filed before APP actually marketed or sold any of the infringing product.  Rather, Lilly appears to have become concerned about infringement due to the new abbreviated new drug application and notice that APP provided to Lilly. It is common for a patent infringement lawsuit, seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment, to be filed after a new abbreviated new drug application is filed with the Food and Drug Administration. The Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 283, allows a court with jurisdiction to grant an injunction “to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.”


Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Copyright lawyers for Broadcast Music Inc. (“BMI”) of New York, New YorkThumbnail image for BMI.jpg and fifteen music publishing companies filed a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indianaalleging Bertee’s Inc. d/b/a Bertee’s Sports Café and Kelly D. Kendrick of Fortville, Indiana infringed eight copyrighted songs that have been registered by the US Copyright Office.

The complaint states that BMI is the exclusive license holder of the eight copyrighted songs at issue and that the other plaintiffs are the owners of the copyrights. The complaint alleges that the eight songs were performed at the Bertee’s Sports Café in Fortville on December 18, 2010 without authorization. The eight songs at issues are: Givin’ It Up For Your Love by Jerry Williams, Good Times by Nile Rogers, Jessie’s Girl by Rick Springfield, On the Dark Side by John Caffery, Kryptonite by Bradley Kirk Arnold, Tennessee by Arrested Development, Wherever You Go by Alex Brand and Name by John Rzeznik. Copyright attorneys are seeking an injunction, damages, costs and attorneys fees.

Practice Tip: In this case, the plaintiffs have sued Kelly Kendrick, the owner of Bertee’s Sports Cafe personally.  Copyright laws allow an officer of a corporation to be held liable for the corporation’s copyright infringement if the officer contributes to the infringement by inducing or encouraging the infringement.  An officer can also be liable for copyright infringement if the officer supervises the infringing conduct and has a direct financial benefit from the infringement.


Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Copyright lawyers for Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) of New York, New YorkBMI.jpg and fourteen music publishing companies filed a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indianaalleging Diamond Investments Inc. d/b/a The Juke Box Live , and Salvatore T. Mazza of Franklin, Indiana infringed eight copyrighted songs that have been registered by the US Copyright Office.

The complaint states that BMI is the exclusive license holder of the eight copyrighted songs at issue and that the other plaintiffs are the owners of the copyrights. The complaint alleges that the eight songs were performed at the Juke Box Live in Franklin on March 19 and 20, 2011 without authorization. The eight songs at issues are: Every Rose Has Its Thorn by Brett Michaels, Family Tradition by Hank Williams, Jr., Keep Your Hands to Your Self by Dan Baird, Lady Down on Love by Randy Owens, Baby Got Back by Anthony L. Ray, Courtesy of The Red, White and Blue by Toby Keith Covel, Play Something Country by Terry McBride, and Gunpowder and Lead by Miranda Lambert. Copyright attorneys are seeking an injunction, damages, costs and attorneys fees.

Practice Tip: In this case, BMI is the exclusive licensor to rights to play the songs listed.  Unless a proper license is received, a bar or other establishment plays or allows a band to play music that has been registered with the US Copyright Office may commit copyright infringement.  These types of cases are very friendly to the intellectual property owner, and a plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees from the defendant.


Continue reading

By

 

Las Vegas, NV — In May, Indiana Intellectual Property Law News reported on Righthaven, LLC, a controversial company that claims to enforce copyrights online. One of the cases Righthaven pursued has recently been in the news again and illustrates the risk of pursuing copyright lawsuits that are not well founded. Righthaven filed a copyright infringement against attorney Thomas DiBiase, a former federal prosecutor. Righthaven claimed DiBiase committed copyright infringement when he posted a news story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal on his blog No Body Murder Blog. In late June, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Hunt of the District of Nevada dismissed the case for lack of standing. It seems that Righthaven did not fully own the copyrighted work and therefore had no standing to sue.

In early July, Mr. DiBiase countersued for $119,000 in legal fees, as reported by Vegasinc.com. Other defendants who have succeeded in getting Righthaven lawsuits dismissed have already been awarded attorneys fees totally over $35,000. As Vegasinc.com reports, many of the early Righthaven lawsuits were settled, but the defendants who have fought the suits have largely won on either standing or under the fair use doctrine.

Practice Tip: The case illustrates the very real risk that Righthaven faced in filing its copyright infringement cases – that it would be forced to pay the attorney fees of those who successfully defended their cases. It also underscores the importance of having an experienced intellectual property attorney who will take an aggressive defense

Continue reading

By

 

South Bend, IN – Trademark lawyers for Century 21 Real Estate LLC Century 21 Logo.JPGParsippany, New Jersey filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging Destiny Real Estate Properties LLC, f/d/b/a Century 21 Destiny Real Estate of Lowell, Indiana and Daniel Sutton, the owner of Destiny Real Estate Properties LLC, infringed Century 21’s trademarks and service marks.

According to the complaint, Destiny was a Century 21 real estate sales franchise beginning in June 2007. Century 21 alleges that Destiny failed to make payments of franchise fees in the amount of approximately $113,000 due under the franchise agreement, and as a result Century 21 terminated the franchise agreement on March 18, 2011. Century 21’s trademark attorneys allege that Destiny continued to use the Century 21 marks following the termination of the franchise agreement, including online at www.century21destiny.com. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin/false advertising, trademark dilution, common law unfair competition, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for an accounting.

Practice Tip: When a franchise agreement terminates, typically the franchisee must promptly cease using and return all signs and other equipment containing trademarks. Failure to do so may result in a lawsuit for breach of contract as well as trademark infringement.

 


Continue reading

By

 

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 125 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in June, 2011:

 

PAT. NO.

Title

1

D640,771

Firefighting nozzle

2

D640,754

Rocker propelled scooter

3

D640,556

Dispensing closure

4

7,969,654

Volume Fresnel zone plates fabricated by laser direct writing

5

7,969,275

Fuse assembly with integrated current sensing

Continue reading

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design