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

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 202 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in August 2020, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No. Title
1 D0900,280 Faucet
2 D0900,147 Display screen or portion thereof with graphical user interface and computer icons
3 D0899,954 Sensor
4 D0899,890 Knob
5 D0899,889 Knob

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 159 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Reg. Number Word Mark
6171625 GANT COIN
6186820 GRASTON
6185288 ACTIVE CARE
6184959 A&A SURFACES
6184958 A&A SURFACES

Continue reading

Fort Wayne, Indiana – JetPro Pilots, LLC, the Plaintiff, apparently recruit, staff, and provide pilots, flight attendants, and technicians to its clients for use on their aircrafts. According to the Complaint, Defendants, Jet Pro, Inc. and Keith Kenneally, offer freight brokerage and forwarding services. The Defendants allegedly sent a cease and desist letter to JetPro Pilots claiming JetPro Pilots was violating Defendants’ U.S. Registration No. 3,186,308 (the “Jet Pro, Inc. Mark”). JetPro Pilots claims to have been in business since 2009 with the first allegation relating to confusion arising out of its use of the phrase “Jet Pro” coming from Defendants in July 2020, with no actual consumer confusion in the eleven years of co-existence.

Blog-Photo

Believing this to be a credible threat of immediate litigation, JetPro Pilots filed suit for a declaratory judgment for unenforceability of a trademark and a declaration of non-infringement pursuant to the Trademark Laws of the United States and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. JetPro Pilots asserts in favor of declaratory judgment that the parties’ logos are dissimilar and the parties provide different goods and services making consumer confusion unlikely.

 

Continue reading

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of fees for the Defendant, David Knott (“Knott”), after Plaintiff, Timothy B. O’Brien LLC (“Apple Wellness”), voluntarily dismissed all its claims with prejudice.

Originally filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, Apple Wellness alleged that Knott, a former employee of Apple Wellness started a similar, competing wellness shop. Apple Wellness sued Knott for alleged trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement. Knott countersued for tortious interference and retaliation. The District Court found the copyright claims baseless and denied a preliminary injunction on the trademark and trade dress claims. Apple Wellness later voluntarily dismissed all its claims.

While Apple Wellness submitted a motion to dismiss without prejudice, the District Court ordered Apple Wellness to withdraw its motion or accept a dismissal with prejudice because Knott had already expended resources litigating an injunction. The District Court further noted that in its opinion, no party’s claim was strong. Apple agreed to the dismissal with prejudice and the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The District Court subsequently denied Knott’s motion for fees leading to this appeal only as to the fees for the copyright claims and the appeal.

BlogPhoto

The Court of Appeals found that while Apple Wellness’s copyright claims were frivolous, it appears the claims were brought in good faith. Therefore, “there were minimal concerns regarding compensation and deterrence.” Further, Knott did not have to expend a large amount of time, money, or energy defending against the copyright claims as they were quickly dismissed. After considering all of the factors, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court denying Knott’s motion for fees.

Continue reading

Hammond, IndianaModern Vascular LLC (“Modern Vascular”), the Plaintiff, originally filed suit against Defendants, Modern Vascular & Vein Center, Nazar Golewale and Jane Doe Golewale, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  In granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana.

Blog-Photo-300x74

According to the Complaint, Modern Vascular has used its mark “MODERN VASCULAR” since 2017, which is registered under U.S. Trademark No. 5,570,334 (the “Registered Mark”).  Modern Vascular claims the Defendants have advertised services, entered into agreements, and caused confusion with third parties using its Registered Mark.  Due to the alleged continued use of the Registered Mark by the Defendants after being informed of the alleged infringement, Modern Vascular is seeking damages for willful trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and false designation of origin.

Continue reading

https://www.iniplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/366/2020/10/Booking.com-Logo-300x76.pngWashington, D.C.– A travel-reservation website, Booking.com, filed federal trademark applications for a number of marks including the term “Booking.com.” After being examined, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration for the mark on the grounds it was a generic name for online reservation services.

However, the District Court, the Fourth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court all found “Booking.com” should be granted registration even though the term “booking” on its own would be generic. The Courts reasoned that because only one entity can occupy an internet domain name at one time, consumers could associate a term styled as “generic.com” with a particular website and source of services.

While the USPTO also argued that allowing trademark protection for “Booking.com” could inhibit competitors from using the term “booking,” the Supreme Court cited multiple doctrines that guard against anticompetitive effects. Those doctrines ensure that a registration for terms such as “Booking.com” would not give the registrant a monopoly on the term “booking.” Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to rule in a manner “that would largely disallow registration of ‘generic.com’ terms and open the door to cancellation of scores of currently registered marks.”

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana –According to the Complaint, Larry G. Philpot (“Philpot”), the Plaintiff, is a well-known photographer of musicians. Philpot claims to have taken a photo of a well-known musician, Kid Rock, during one of Kid Rock’s concerts. After taking the photo, Philpot apparently applied for and obtained U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 1-182-727  for the photo (the “Registered Photo”).

Philbot-Photo-JPeg

Philpot claims COTR, LLC d/b/a Chicks on the Right of Indianapolis (“COTR”) copied and published the Registered Photo on its website. While Philpot claims to have discovered the alleged infringement on or after July 26, 2017, the post was apparently removed at some point after December 21, 2017. However, per the Complaint, Philpot’s counsel sent a formal infringement notice to COTR on July 6, 2020, prior to the filing of the Complaint. Philpot is seeking damages for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 505.

Continue reading

Northern District of Indiana –Apparently, EZ Tankless, Inc. (“EZ Tankless”), the Plaintiff, sells water heaters throughout the world. EZ Tankless also claims to own the trademark for EZ TANKLESS under U.S. Registration No. 5,502,206 (the “Registered Mark”), which has been used in connection with its tankless water heaters since July 2009. According to the Complaint, Noritz America Corporation (“Noritz”), the Defendant, “is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of gas-fired baths and hot water heaters.”

Photos-1024x432

EZ Tankless claims Noritz adopted a confusingly similar mark to the Registered Mark and has been using that mark in connection with Noritz’s EZ Series tankless water heaters since April 2017. Per the Complaint, Noritz applied for and was granted registration for its trademark EZ SERIES under U.S. Registration No. 5,731,024 in connection, in relevant part, with tankless water heaters. Noritz was also apparently granted a trademark registration for EZTR under U.S. Registration No. 4,800,941 with a date of first use on October 31, 2014.

According to the Complaint, EZ Tankless contacted Noritz on multiple occasions through counsel to request Noritz cease use of the EZ related marks. However, Noritz apparently continued to use the marks. Therefore, EZ Tankless is seeking damages for trademark infringement pursuant to the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. Additionally, EZ Tankless is seeking to cancel both the EZ SERIES and EZTR marks as it contends they were granted registration based on false representations.

Continue reading

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

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 212 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September 2020, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No. Title
1 D0897285 Charger
2 D0897245 Flex receiver hitch
3 10,791,383 Draft beer supply chain systems and methods
4 10,790,766 Dynamic energy harvesting and variable harvesting force system
5 10,790,441 Spin-transfer-torque synthetic anti-ferromagnetic switching device

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  218 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Reg. Number Word Mark
6164786 EMPOWER THE WORLD. ONE MIND AT A TIME
6171463 PIGTEK
6169511
6171692 UNITED STATES WRESTLING ASSOCIATION
6169018 LINCOLN FINANCIAL FIELD

 

Continue reading

Contact Information