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.

Registration No.  Word Mark Click To View
5539152 COMPETITIVE STRUCTURED BLOCK PLAY TSDR
5551465 RANGEXPERTS TSDR
5550999 LIL BUCKS TSDR
5550790 MOVING FORWARD TSDR
5550600 MOVING FORWARD TSDR
5550594 PRECISION PRODUCTS GROUP INC. TSDR

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, InVue Security Products Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Mobile Tech, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. and MTI, formerly known as Merchandising Technologies, Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon, but incorporated in Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 10,062,266, (the “‘266Invue-BlogPhotot-300x191 patent”) for a “Programmable Security System and Method for Protecting Merchandise”.   Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, judgment awarding InVue a reasonable royalty, prejudgment interest, and other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Chief executive officers for both parties met in person on April 11, 2018 to discuss the defendant’s Intellikey 3.0, its Gateway products, and other potentially infringing items “Accused Items”. The plaintiff provided defendant with a copy of at least Claim 1 of the pending ‘266 patent, informing them that the Intellikey 3.0 would infringe the claims of the ‘266 patent when issued. The application for the ‘266 patent published on August 16, 2018 and the ‘266 patent issued on August 28, 2018, just before the Complaint was filed.

The first cause of action in the Complaint is for direct infringement of the ‘266 patent as MTI manufactures, offers for sale, sells, imports, and/or uses the Accused Items. Second, contributory infringement of the ‘266 patent is alleged as the Accused Items are not staple articles of commerce, are not suitable for a substantial non-infringing use, and are especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘266 patent. Third, infringement by inducement because the defendant sells the Accused Items to customers with the intent that they will use and operate them in a manner that infringes the ‘266 patent. Finally, plaintiffs claim that defendants should be held liable for pre-issuance damages as they were aware and had actual notice of the patent application after it published.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff and Attorney, Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Joan Mattox, infringed his rights to the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the U.S. Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115.  Plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorney’s fees and other relief deemed just and proper.

Bell has filed many copyright infringement cases on his own behalf based on his copyrights. See:

In this case, Bell claims that Mattox created a website to promote her business in the Indianapolis area with the domain name of http://www.readymadestaffing.com/. The Defendant then used the Indianapolis Photo on the website to garner the attention of prospective customers. It is alleged that the Indianapolis Photo was displayed on the webpage on or about December 15, 2015 and was still being displayed as of the filing of the Complaint. Bell is suing for copyright infringement and vicarious liability for each third-party download of the Indianapolis Photo from the Mattox’s website. Bell claims that Mattox falsely claimed that Ready Made Resources owned all of the photos and images on their website and used the Indianapolis Photo commercially without paying for the use or obtaining authorization from the Plaintiff. Further, Bell alleges that the Defendant refuses to pay damages for the unauthorized use and has not agreed to be enjoined from further use of the Indianapolis Photo.

It is alleged that the Indianapolis Photo was displayed on the webpage on or about December 15, 2015 and was still being displayed as of the filing of the Complaint. Bell is suing for copyright infringement and vicarious liability for each third-party download of the Indianapolis Photo from the Mattox’s website. Bell claims that Mattox falsely claimed that Ready Made Resources owned all of the photos and images on their website and used the Indianapolis Photo commercially without paying for the use or obtaining authorization from the Plaintiff. Further, Bell alleges that the Defendant refuses to pay damages for the unauthorized use and has not agreed to be enjoined from further use of the Indianapolis Photo.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney and Photographer Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Halcyon Business Publications, Inc., of New York infringed his “Indianapolis Photo” which has been registered with the United States Copyright Office as Registration No. VA0001785115. After review of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction which was filed on December 29, 2017 the court granted the Motion to Dismiss on May 24, 2018.

Bell, who has brought many similar lawsuits for infringement of his Indianapolis Photo, initially filed this case on November 29, 2017 alleging violations of the Lanham Act and copyright infringement. Halcyon claimed that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the company as they do not maintain any offices in the state, have no employees in the state, and have no assets in the state of Indiana. They did admHalcyon-BlogPhoto-300x66it that they hired one Indiana resident as an independent contractor to write for their publication, but that contractor did not write the article that utilized the Indianapolis Photo. Further, the total amounts of advertising sold to Indiana companies by Halcyon amounted to 3.26% and 4.55% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and Indiana subscribers to the publication comprised less than 3% of their total subscribers.

Here, the Court must only look at whether the personal jurisdiction is consistent with the Federal Due Process Clause as Indiana’s long-arm statute is analyzed under this issue. For this, a defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum state and purposefully avail themselves “of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum [s]tate, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987). This allows a defendant to reasonably anticipate being brought into a forum in a foreign jurisdiction.

Continue reading

Hammond, Indiana – Previous United States Assistant Attorney Joshua P. Kolar will fill the vacancy made by Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry as Northern District of Indiana Magistrate Judge. Kolar has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Hammond since 2007 and was among forty-three applicants for the judgeship. The judges on the court selected Kolar from the five finalists that made it through the Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Committee.

Kolar received his undergraduate degree from Northwestern University and attended law school at the Northwestern University School of Law. As a magistrate judge, his main duties will include conducting preliminary proceedings in criminal cases and presiding over hearings and trials for civil cases and misdemeanor cases. He may also be requested to handle pretrial motions and attempts to resolve civil matters without trial by the district judges.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Taylor Precision Products, Inc. of Oak Brook, Illinois, and The Chef’n Corporation of Seattle, Washington, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Double A Concepts, LLC of Mooresville, Indiana, Aaron Farnsworth of Mooresville, Indiana, and Gemini Farnsworth of Mooresville, Indiana, infringed their rights in United States Patent No. 9,718,198 (“the ‘198198Patent-300x244 Patent”) for “Stripping Tool for Leafy Vegetables and Herbs” and United States Patent No. D776,991 (“the ‘991 Patent”) for “Stripping Tool for Leafy Vegetable and Herbs”. Plaintiffs are seeking permanent and preliminary injunctions, compensatory damages, treble damages, pre-judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees.

Plaintiff Chef’n owns the ‘198 Patent, which issued on August 1, 2017 from an application claiming the benefit to the provisional application that was filed on September 8, 2014. Plaintiff Taylor owns the ‘991 Patent, which issued on January 24, 2017 from an application filed on September 8, 2014. The Defendants own and operate a store, “Friendly Cooking,” which sells kitchen products through their website, www.friendlycooking.com.

Together, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants offer for sale and have sold a 3 Piece Clip on Strainer Set, which includes an infringing herb stripping tool. The herb stripping tool is alleged to include each and every limitation recited in at least independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 of the ‘198 Patent. Even if the herb stripping tool does not contain each and every feature literally, the Plaintiffs claim that it is still infringing under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Further, Plaintiffs assert that the herb stripping tool is substantially the same design as the ‘991 Patent, therefore infringing the ‘991 Patent.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Amy Polston, infringed his rights to the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief as is just and proper.

Bell, who has filed numerous similar cases, took the Indianapolis Photo in March 2000. He subsequently posted the photo online in August 2000 and registered the photo with the US Copyright Office nearly 11 years later. Bell alleges that Polston used the Indianapolis Photo on a website she created to promote and advertise her business in the Indianapolis area. He further alleges that Polston falsely claimed to Trulia.com, the profile host, that shePolston-BlogPhoto owned the copyrights of all images and photographs used on her profile including the Indianapolis Photo. Bell asserts that Polston began using the Indianapolis Photo on her website beginning in 2014 without paying for the use or licensing the photo from him.

Plaintiff has filed this suit as Polston has refused to pay for the unauthorized use and has not agreed to be enjoined from using the Indianapolis Photo. As such, Bell claims that Polston is vicariously liable for each downloaded copy of the Indianapolis Photo by each third-party that downloaded it from her website. He also claims that she is liable for all profits resulting from these downloads and copyright infringement, even if she did not know that any use of the Indianapolis Photo would infringe Bell’s copyright.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Michel Keck of Jefferson Township, Owen County, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, John Mark Lawrence d/b/a Mark Lawrence Art Gallery of Alpharetta, Georgia, and DOES 1 through 25 infringed numerous pieces of artwork. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, actual damages, statutory damages, cost of litigation, and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Keck-BlogPhotoKeck is a successful abstract and mixed media artist. She opened an online art gallery and her own fine art publishing company in 2006. Over 1,500 of her original paintings had sold by the end of 2006 to art collectors throughout the world. Keck has registered 22 original paintings (the “Works”) with the United States Copyright Office.

Defendant Lawrence gave an interview in 2009 stating that he creates his art by digitally manipulating existing images using Photoshop and other such computer programs. In April 2014, Keck was approached by an online distributor, Framed Canvas Art, and was given Lawrence’s contact information as a reference. In response to Keck’s email seeking information about the distributor, Lawrence stated, “I just took a look at your art – wow! You have a new fan.” Over three years later in September 2017, Keck found numerous art pieces for sale attributed to Lawrence that appeared to be unauthorized derivatives of her Works. It looked as though Lawrence would take one of Keck’s Works and then mirror or rotate it before running it through a computerized filter (creating “Unauthorized Derivative Works”).

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Keith F. Bell, Ph.D. of Texas filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Lloy Ball, of Angola, Indiana, and USA Volleyball of Colorado Springs, Colorado infringed his rights in Copyright Registration Number TX-0002-6726-44 titled “Winning Isn’t Normal”KeithBell-BlogPhoto-192x300 (the “Infringed Work”) and his rights in Trademark Registration Number 4630749. Plaintiff is seeking judgment awarding damages, actual damages, profits, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, pre-judgement, and post judgment interest.

The Infringed Work was first published in 1982 and registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1989. Dr. Bell continues to offer for sale and market his book and derivative works such as posters and t-shirts with a specific passage known as the “WIN Passage”. He has offered and continues to offer licenses to those that may wish to publish or utilize the WIN Passage. The word mark “WINNING ISN’T NORMAL” has also been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with Registration No. 4630749 for printed matter.

Dr. Bell alleges that Defendant Ball posted a representation of the WIN Passage on his Twitter account on or about November 12, 2015. This post received at least 51 “retweets” and 201 “likes” from Ball’s over 2,000 followers. Dr. Bell also claims that Defendant USA Volleyball posted a representation of the WIN Passage on their Twitter account on or about November 20, 2015 that included a “retweet” of the post by Defendant Ball. This post received at least 30 “retweets” and over 7,000 “likes” from USA Volleyball’s over 123,000 followers. Cease and desist letters were sent to Ball and USA Volleyball on July 15, 2016 and April 21, 2017, respectively. Both Defendants removed their posts shortly after the letter was sent to Ball, automatically removing all retweets of the post. While the Defendants have acknowledged liability to the Plaintiff, they have not agreed to enter into a settlement agreement to protect the Plaintiff’s rights and compensate him for his injuries, leading to this suit for both copyright and trademark infringement.

Continue reading

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Vera Bradley Designs, Inc., of Roanoke, Indiana filed suit in theDenny-BlogPhoto-300x64 Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Austin Devin 2 Denny Boys, LLC,  infringed multiple trademarks of the Plaintiff. Overhauser Law Offices, LLC represented the Defendant Austin Devin 2 Denny Boys LLC and Darlene Nicholas, who filed a Motion to Dismiss for improper venue and prevailed on July 30, 2018.

Plaintiff currently holds more than 900 copyright registrations, 35 federal trademark registrations, and has 17 pending federal trademark applications. The Plaintiff alleged in its complaint that the Defendants operate eBay accounts that they use to sell counterfeit Vera Bradley items and these acts infringe Vera Bradley’s trademarks and copyrights. All Defendants were sent cease and desist letters on behalf of the Plaintiff via counsel on July 26, 2017. On August 1, 2017, all Defendants party to the Motion to Dismiss responded through counsel and agreed to stop selling the counterfeit items, however, the Plaintiff alleged they did not cease their activities and filed suit.

The Defendants moved to dismiss Vera Bradley’s Complaint and claimed that because a substantial part of the events leading to the Plaintiff’s claims did not occur in the Northern District of Indiana, venue was improper. Further, Defendant Nicholas, claimed that the Court did not have personal jurisdiction over her. The Plaintiff countered that there were five specific instances in which the counterfeit merchandise was purchased by its employees within the Northern District of Indiana from the Defendants. They also claimed that venue was proper because they suffered harm in the District. As to Defendant Nicholas, the Court held that the Plaintiff did not give any persuasive argument as to how the Northern or Southern District Courts of Indiana could have general or specific personal jurisdiction over her in this case as she resides in Florida. Therefore, the Court was unable to transfer the case to the Southern District of Indiana, which may have been a proper venue for the other Defendants involved.

Continue reading

Contact Information