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
5595803 PHA DIRECT TSDR
5595602 MAKE IT RING TSDR
5595492 IVYCOVE TSDR
5597611 TRAINMATE TSDR
5595083 GROTE GUARDIAN TSDR
5594998 TSDR
5594558 B TSDR

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – In April 2018, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Joe Hand”), ofJoeHand-BlogPhoto-300x100 Feasterville, Pennsylvania, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, MBK Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Matey’s Restaurant & Bar, of Michigan City, Indiana, Bryan Konieczny, and Mark Kehoskie, both individuals residing in Indiana, infringed its rights in the “UFC 202: Diaz v. McGregor 2”, “UFC 203: Miocic v. Overeem”, “UFC 205: Alvarez v. McGregor”, “UFC 207: Nunes v. Rousey”, “UFC 208: Holm v. de Randamie”, and UFC 210: Cormier v. Johnson 2” (the “Programs”). Plaintiff sought statutory damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. Default Judgment in favor of Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. was entered as of October 19, 2018.

Joe Hand specializes in exclusively distributing and licensing premier, pay-per-view sporting events, including the Programs, to commercial locations. Plaintiff worked with multiple locations in Indiana to license and distribute the Programs so the commercial establishments could show them to their patrons. Defendants did not contract with the Plaintiff to show the Programs, even though they could have and could have paid the accompanying licensing fee of approximately $1,680.00 for such. Joe Hand asserts that Defendants willfully intercepted the interstate communication of the Programs and unlawfully exhibited them to their patrons within their commercial establishment.

Plaintiff sought judgment against Defendants for wrongful actions violating 47 U.S.C. § 605, or alternatively, 47 U.S.C. § 553. They asked for the maximum statutory damages of $110,000.00 under 47 U.S.C. § 605, or alternatively, the maximum statutory damages of $60,000.00 under 47 U.S.C. § 553, plus attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. While the Judge did enter a default judgment against the Defendants, he did not enter the entire amount of statutory damages requested. Instead, he broke down the total damages of $42,002.00 as follows:

  • $10,080.00 in statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II);
  • $30,240.00 in additional damages under 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii);
  • $562.00 in attorney’s fees;
  • $400.00 in costs; and
  • 66% post-judgment interest.

Many times in litigation, judges award the entire amount sought in the event of a default judgment, but the Judge in this case took the time to parse out damages under the statutes.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Heartland Consumer Products LLC and TC Heartland LLC (collectively “Heartland”), of Carmel, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana in April of 2017 alleging that Defendants, DineEquity, Inc., Applebee’s Franchisor LLC, Applebee’s Restaurants LLC, Applebee’s Services, Inc., International House of Pancakes, LLC, IHOP Franchisor LLC, IHOP Franchising LLC, and IHOP Franchise Company, LLC all of Glendale, California; infringed its rights in some or all of United States Trademark Registration Nos.: 1544079, 3346910; 4172135, 4165028, 4301712, 4172136, 4165029,4122311, 4187229,Heartland-v-DineEquity-BlogPhoto 4202774, 4230392, 4238101, 4106164, 4664653, and 4744600 (SPLENDA IP”). In addition, at the time they filed their Complaint, HEARTLAND was the owner of the following applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504, two of which are still “LIVE” trademarks. The suit settled in October 2018.

SPLENDA® is a low-calorie sweetener using sucralose that is a compound made from sugar. With the FDA approving sucralose for use in food products and food preparations in 1998, SPLENDA® was at the forefront of the market coming out in 1999 and launching in retail stores across the United States in September 2000. SPLENDA® is well-known and famous for their yellow-colored packaging which has been used continuously since the brand began using that color.

Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants misappropriated the SPLENDA IP to deceive consumers and were actually providing consumers with a lower-quality product from China. For instance, some people working at IHOP and Applebee’s restaurants would orally affirm to customers that the yellow packets provided did in fact contain SPLENDA ® even though they did not. Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. They were seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, corrective advertising damages, Defendant’s profits, and costs among other damages. The Parties have settled outside of court as of October 2018.

Continue reading

Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that David N. Powell, the executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council (“IPAC”) infringed the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” ofBell-v-Powell-BlogPhoto-300x63 Richard Bell by using the photograph in a Spring Conference Brochure for the Midwest Regional Network for Intervention with Sex Offenders (“MRNISO”).  Last week the Southern District of Indiana District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied Bell’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Powell’s and MRNISO’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in the case.
Continue reading

Hanlon-BlogPhoto-300x300Indianapolis, Indiana – Former federal prosecutor and current partner at Faegre Baker Daniels LLC, J.P. Hanlon, has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate as a new federal judge in the Southern District of Indiana. Hanlon has experience in investigation and enforcement proceedings conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies, as well as representing clients in high-stakes civil litigation.

After graduating magna cum laude from Valparaiso University School of Law in 1996, Hanlon went on to clerk for the Honorable Robert L. Miller Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Hanlon is a member of the Criminal Justice Act Panels for both the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. He also supports the local Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law by participating on the Wrongful Conviction Clinic Advisory Committee. Hanlon will be a great asset to the Southern District as they have been trying to recover from a heavy workload after a longtime judge took senior status in 2014.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana for a declaratory judgment against Defendant, Adocia S.A. of Lyon, France, who is claiming inventorship and ownership rights inLilly-v-Adocia-photo-300x170 Lilly’s United States Patent No. 9,901,623 B2 (“the ‘623 Patent”) for “Rapid-Acting Insulin Compositions”, and United States Patent No. 9,993,555 B2 (“the ‘555 Patent”) for “Rapid-Acting Insulin Compositions”. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment, attorneys’ fees and costs, and further relief the Court determines to be just and proper.

Lilly began its research that led to the ‘623 and ‘555 Patents at least as early as 2011. Right around that same time, Lilly and Adocia began negotiating an agreement to develop an ultra-rapid insulin “URI” formulation using Adocia’s BioChaperone® technology. Adocia and Lilly entered into a collaborative research and license agreement on December 13, 2011. The two companies signed a confidentiality agreement on November 21, 2012. By July 2013, the original agreement was terminated.

The Parties entered into a second confidentiality agreement on December 16, 2013 and a second collaborative research and license agreement on December 18, 2014 using different BioChaperone® molecules than the first agreement. The second research collaborative continued until January 2017. While Lilly was a part of the research collaborative, they were also running a separate internal program to develop a URI with specific concentrations of citrate for a more rapid time action profile and specific excipients to maintain the stability for the composition. Unlike this research, the collaborative research focused only on URI products containing BioChaperone® molecules. The separate internal research led to the ‘623 Patent issuing on February 27, 2018 and the ‘555 Patent issuing on June 12, 2018.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Veridus Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana for a declaratory judgment against Defendant, Strategic IP Information Pte Ltd. (“SIP-IP”) of Irvine, California, that Veridus Group has not infringed SIP-IP’s rights in United States TrademarkBlogphoto Registration No. 5,294,263 for the mark VERI-SITE. Plaintiff is seeking declaration and judgment, damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and any other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

This case arose after the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a cease and desist letter alleging that Veridus Group was infringing on their federal trademark. SIP-IP provides internet and brand management services, which include certification systems to “help ad networks and publishers identify website hosting content without authorization.” Veridus Group runs a site certification program designed to help professional property developers mitigate risk and to help end-users in increasing the speed to market and improving the value and marketability of a site or building. They utilize the mark VERISITE for marketing and sales purposes related to their site certification services and related goods.

Veridus Group claims that the Defendant does not have an exclusive right over the word “VERISITE” in connection with Plaintiff’s business activities as they are significantly different from those of SIP-IP. Further, Plaintiff alleges that even if Defendant did have exclusive ownership in this manner, the services and goods are marketed in such different channels of trade and with both companies working with sophisticated purchasers, there is not a likelihood of confusion for the origin of the services and/or goods. As there is an actual case and controversy as to whether Plaintiff is infringing Defendant’s mark in violation of the Lanham Act and as to whether the Plaintiff engaged in unfair competition at the federal or state common law level, Plaintiff is seeking a declaration of the rights of the parties in connection with the mark VERISITE.

Continue reading

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 174 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September 2018, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

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.

Patent No. Title
1 D0829374 Lighter
2 D0829233 Display screen with graphical user interface
3 10085326 Power over ethernet lighting system with battery charge control algorithm
4 10085135 Radio frequency patch antenna and system for permitting secure access to a restricted area
5 10085133 Networked pest control system

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Alliant Specialty Insurance Services, Inc., of San Diego, California, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Tribal-Care Insurance LLC of St. John, Indiana, has and continues to infringe its rights in the TribalCare trademark. Plaintiff is seeking an injunction, damages, statutory damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees in addition to other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Plaintiff alleges that the TribalCare mark was first used in interstate commerce on or about May 24, 2010 by HealthSmart Holdings, Inc. The mark was registered on November 29, 2011 as United States Trademark Registration No. 4,062,744. Just before the mark was officially registered, on or about October 7, 2011,Alliant-v-Tribal-BlogPhoto-300x68 HealthSmart and Alliant came to an agreement that would allow Alliant to use the TribalCare trademark.

According to Alliant, HealthSmart learned of the Defendant’s use of the mark “Tribal-Care” in late 2015 or early 2016. After HealthSmart discovered the allegedly infringing use, they sent a cease and desist letter to Tribal-Care on January 8, 2016. Defendant filed a petition to cancel HealthSmart’s registration in the United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on August 17, 2016. As a result, HealthSmart assigned the trademark rights in the TribalCare mark to Alliant so they could be substituted into the cancellation action for litigation.

Continue reading

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
5572261 COMMODITAG TSDR
5570702 ASRX TSDR
5570677 APEX TSDR
5570622 CHICAGO BIFOLD TSDR
5570497 BIG IDEAS, SMALL WORLD TSDR
5570474 COMPDATA EDGE TSDR
5570226 ABSOLUTE WATER TECHNOLOGIES TSDR
5570225 ABSOLUTE WATER TECHNOLOGIES TSDR
5570119 RUSH PUPPY TSDR
5569660 DIGITAL CHARISMA TSDR
5572237 ARGUES FOR SPORT TSDR

Continue reading

Contact Information