Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

BCW Diversified, Inc. (BCW) has filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Ultra PRO International, LLC (Ultra Pro) seeking a court declaration that BCW’s conduct does not infringe, dilute, or constitute unfair competition regarding Ultra Pro’s alleged trademarks for plastic trading card holders. Specifically, BCW contests Ultra Pro’s claims over marks such as TOPLOADER, PENNY SLEEVES, PRO-BINDER, MINI SNAP, CHROMAFUSION TECHNOLOGY, and DECK VAULT, which BCW argues are either invalid or unprotectable.

The case originates from Ultra Pro’s demands for BCW to stop using these terms, claiming they infringe upon its trademarks. BCW denies any wrongdoing, maintaining that the terms in question are generic, non-infringing, and commonly used in the industry for specific types of card protectors. BCW claims their product offerings, which include top loaders, penny sleeves, mini snaps, and other protective trading card items, have been in use for over thirty years and are not intended to serve as trademarks. BCW emphasizes that these terms are used descriptively and are not likely to confuse consumers regarding the source of the products.

BCW’s position is that Ultra Pro’s claims lack legal foundation. For example, BCW argues that Ultra Pro’s registration of marks such as TOPLOADER and PENNY SLEEVES should not be considered valid as they are generic terms that have been in common use long before Ultra Pro’s registration. Additionally, BCW alleges that Ultra Pro has failed to prove that its marks are famous enough to support a claim of trademark dilution under the Lanham Act. BCW also challenges Ultra Pro’s attempt to enforce exclusive rights in phrases like “CHROMAFUSION TECHNOLOGY,” arguing that this term is merely descriptive of a process and not a distinctive trademark.

Hiker Industries, LLC (“Hiker”) has filed a lawsuit against Hyk Outdoors LLC (“Hyk”), alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under both federal and state laws. The complaint focuses on the use of marks by Hyk that Hiker claims are confusingly similar to its own registered trademarks. Hiker has been in the business of designing and manufacturing customizable trailers for over a decade, earning a reputation for quality and durability. Hiker contends that Hyk’s use of the marks “HYK OUTDOORS” and “HYK DESIGN” has led to consumer confusion, with potential customers mistakenly associating Hyk’s products with Hiker.

The lawsuit asserts that Hyk, which began using its marks in 2020, is unfairly capitalizing on the reputation that Hiker has built with its own trademarks, specifically the “HIKER TRAILER” and “HIKER DESIGN” marks. According to Hiker, its years of investment in the trailer business have led to the development of a strong brand identity, which is at risk due to the similarities between the two sets of marks. Hiker claims that this confusion has resulted in lost sales and damage to its reputation, as consumers may believe that Hyk’s products are affiliated with Hiker.

Hiker is the registered owner of the “HIKER TRAILER” and “HIKER DESIGN” marks, which are used in connection with trailers and related goods. These marks have been featured in advertising, on product labels, and on apparel, contributing to Hiker’s brand recognition. Hyk, a company formed in 2019, began using its similar marks more than a decade after Hiker had first established its own. Despite this timeline, Hiker claims that the use of these similar marks by Hyk has caused confusion in the marketplace, leading to harm for Hiker’s business.

AWGI, LLC and Atlas Van Lines, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a lawsuit against Atlas Mover Group LLC (“AMG”) and United Best Moving LLC (“UBM”) (“Defendants”) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are unlawfully using the “Atlas” mark, which is associated with decades of goodwill and recognition in the moving and storage industry.

According to the complaint, Atlas Van Lines was founded in 1948 and has become a globally recognized brand, with over 430 independent agencies and partners in 140 countries. They own trademarks related to “Atlas,” which have been heavily promoted through advertising, online presence, and community engagement. Over the years, Atlas has built a reputation for high-quality service and earned substantial goodwill in its marks.

Defendants AMG and UBM are accused of using the “Atlas” name and logo on their website, and in their marketing materials. Plaintiffs argue that this usage creates confusion among consumers, who mistakenly believe AMG’s services are affiliated with Atlas Van Lines. Plaintiffs allege that this unauthorized use dilutes the distinctiveness of the Atlas Marks and harms their business reputation.