Tatuyou Sues Indiana-Based One Ink Seven for Alleged Infringement

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tatuyou, L.L.C. (“Tatuyou”) of Hastings, Minnesota, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, One Ink Seven LLC (“One Ink”) of Goshen, Indiana and Robert F. Smead (“Smead”), infringed its rights in its intellectual property portfolio. Tatuyou is seeking damages,costs, and attorneys’ fees.Blog-Photo-200x300

Tatuyou claims to be in the business of selling products to be used in the tattoo industry with an intellectual property portfolio all relating to its sales business. According to the complaint, Tatuyou is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,546,281 (the “‘281 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Stencil Composition and Method for Manufacturing.” Tatuyou also claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,613 (the “‘613 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Transfer Pattern Printed by an Ink Jet Printer.”

According to the complaint, One Ink does business as “Electrum Supply” and owns and operates a website with the domain name: http://www.electrumsupply.com. Tatuyou claims that One Ink is infringing, actively inducing infringement, and contributorily infringing both the ‘281 Patent and the ‘613 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by offering for sale products named “Electrum Premium Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “Electrum Gold Standard Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “NOX Violet,” and “Eco Stencils.” Tatuyou’s attorney allegedly sent One Ink a letter on December 20, 2018 informing One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘281 Patent and a subsequent letter on June 12, 2019 to inform One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘613 Patent.

Tatuyou claims to be the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,608,906 (the “‘906 Registration”) for INKJET STENCILS. According to the complaint, One Ink uses a counterfeit mark that is substantially indistinguishable from or identical to the ‘906 Registration (“One Ink’s Mark”). Further, Tatuyou claims the use of One Ink’s Mark is in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) in that it is likely to cause confusion with the ‘906 Registration. Tatuyou is also claiming trademark infringement against Smead for authorizing or directing One Ink to use or adopt One Ink’s Mark.

Finally, Tatuyou is seeking damages for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, et seq. Tatuyou claims it “has filed an application, deposit and fees with the U.S. Copyright Office relative to” its image of Inkjet Stencil bottles (“Inkjet Image”). According to the complaint, One Ink and Smead have reproduced the Inkjet Image and created a derivative work based upon the Inkjet Image. Tatuyou also claims the derivative work was published by Smead on his personal Instagram account without Tatuyou’s consent. As such, Tatuyou is seeking an injunction, damages, and fees.

The case was assigned to Judge Jon E. DeGuilio and Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. in the Northern District and assigned Case 3:19-cv-01186-JD-MGG.


Contact Information