Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

January 6, 2025

Delta Faucet Fights Back: Lawsuit Against Amazon Storefront Targets Unauthorized Sales, Trademark Violations and Brand Damage

Delta Faucet Company, a prominent manufacturer of kitchen and bathroom fixtures, alleges that Justin and Andrew Bundrick engaged in unauthorized sales of Delta-branded products via Amazon storefronts “SummitMerch” (previously “BunjiSolutions”) and “A.B.Sales”. The company claims these products failed to meet their quality standards and did not include the official warranty, thereby violating trademark laws under the Lanham Act and constituting unfair competition.

Delta contends that the defendants’ sales of defective or subpar goods resulted in negative reviews, consumer confusion, and damage to Delta’s reputation. Despite receiving cease-and-desist letters, the defendants reportedly continued to sell non-genuine products. Test purchases indicated improper packaging and the absence of Delta’s warranty.

Delta argues that these unauthorized sales amount to trademark infringement and unfair competition, as the products differ significantly from authentic Delta items. The company is seeking injunctive relief, asserting that these sales harm its brand value and erode consumer trust.

January 3, 2025

Magpul Sues Elite Tactical Systems over Alleged Patent Infringement Over Polymer Ammo Magazines

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Magpul Sues Elite Tactical Systems over Alleged Patent Infringement Over Polymer Ammo Magazines

Magpul Industries Corporation has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against fellow firearm accessories manufacturer Elite Tactical Systems Group, LLC. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has infringed upon U.S. Patents Nos. 8,991,086 and 9,746,264. Magpul claims that the defendant made, used, sold, imported, and offered polymer ammunition magazines that infringe on these patents for sale. Specifically, the defendant’s products, including the ETS 30rd 5.56x45mm NATO/.223 Remington polymer magazines, are said to incorporate the patented magazine architecture described in the ’086 and ’264 patents.

Magpul argues that the defendant’s actions are unlawful and are causing harm to its exclusive patent rights. The lawsuit seeks damages, including potential treble damages, a permanent injunction to prevent further infringement, the destruction of infringing products, attorney’s fees, and other legal remedies.

December 30, 2024

Dr. Keith Bell Sues Bartholomew School District and Coach for Alleged Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Author, Dr. Keith F. Bell (“Plaintiff”), has filed another copyright infringement suit in Indiana (see past suit), this time against Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation (“Bartholomew”) and Timothy Bless (“Bless”), again claiming infringement of his intellectual property. Dr. Bell wrote the book Winning Isn’t Normal in 1981, and the key passage titled “Winning Isn’t Normal” (WIN) is central to the book. Dr. Bell holds the copyrights for both the book and WIN, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. He has invested significant effort in promoting his work, which is sold through his websites and various products like posters and t-shirts.

Dr. Bell alleges that Bless, as an employee of Bartholomew and a coach at Columbus North High School, used his copyrighted material without permission by posting a representation of the WIN chapter on social media in March 2022. Dr. Bell claims this act violated his exclusive rights, including reproduction, distribution, and public display of his intellectual property. He asserts that Bartholomew was aware of the infringement and failed to prevent it, benefiting from the activities linked to Bless’s posts. Additionally, Dr. Bell accuses the defendants of removing copyright management information from his work, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Dr. Bell further states that Bartholomew and Bless had previously entered into a settlement agreement in 2020, where they agreed to cease using WIN without proper authorization. He claims that the defendants’ actions in 2022 breached that agreement. As a result, Dr. Bell seeks injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and damages up to $150,000 per infringed work.

December 27, 2024

Plaintiff Illustrator Files Fresh Lawsuit Against Amazon KDP/Jeff Bezos Over Unauthorized Book Covers

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Plainfield, Indiana – Allen Lee Asher-Butler has filed a copyright infringement suit against Amazon KDP and Jeff Bezos, claiming they are committing copyright infringement regarding four books that he designed and illustrated the covers for. According to Asher, these books, authored by William “Will” Wills, have been sold by Amazon since 2009 without his authorization. Despite submitting a copyright infringement claim to Amazon, Asher asserts that the books have continued to be available in both Kindle and paperback formats.

This is not the first time Asher has pursued legal action against Amazon regarding this dispute. He previously filed a nearly identical lawsuit (see previous blog post), but the court dismissed his case due to procedural issues. Asher filed the original lawsuit in November 2020, but from the outset, he faced difficulties. He filed motions requesting assistance with serving the Defendants, which were both denied in 2021. The court explained that it could not provide service assistance because Asher was not proceeding in forma pauperis, meaning he did not qualify for free legal services. The court also ordered Asher to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed due to his failure to prosecute the claims.

In January 2022, the court ultimately dismissed Asher’s case without prejudice, stating that his summons did not meet legal requirements and that he had missed the deadline to serve the Defendants. Asher responded by filing a handwritten summons, but this was not sufficient to address the deficiencies in his filing. The court emphasized that Asher had been given multiple opportunities to remedy these issues but failed to do so.

December 23, 2024

BCW Takes a Stand Against Ultra Pro’s Trademark Infringement Claims in Card Protection Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

December 20, 2024

Dream Home Photographer Sues Integra Builders for Alleged Photo Theft

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Amy Latka, a seasoned commercial photographer specializing in real estate photography and videography, has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Integra Builders LLC, a company based in Fishers, Indiana. Latka, who operates Dream Home Media LLC, claims that Integra infringed on her copyrighted photographs by using them without permission on its commercial website.

According to court documents, Latka captured two sets of photographs that are at the center of the lawsuit. The first set, referred to as “Copyrighted Photographs 1,” was taken on January 12, 2021, and depicted a property located in Fortville, Indiana. The second set, “Copyrighted Photographs 2,” was taken on May 20 and May 25, 2021, of another property located in Fishers, Indiana. According to the complaint, Integra began using these photographs on its website as early as July 1, 2021, without Latka’s consent. The lawsuit also claims that the infringement continued into 2024.

Latka asserts that Integra copied and posted her copyrighted photographs to its website, including the addition of a watermark bearing Integra’s name and logo. Latka claims that Integra acted with knowledge of the infringement, as she had notified the company of the unauthorized use in November 2021. Despite this, the company allegedly continued to display the photographs without securing a proper license or permission.

December 13, 2024

192 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Entities in November 2024

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 192 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in November 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration Number	Wordmark
85255683	U LOFT.COM
97835504	CT
85263428	LOFT ORIGINAL EST. 1986
85263473	VARSITY LOFT CLUB
90028764	PAW BLOCK

December 13, 2024

Identity Crisis: My Market, LLC Fights Batth Market’s Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

My Market, LLC, (Plaintiff) an Indiana-based convenience store operator, has initiated legal proceedings against Batth Markets, Inc. and Chhaterpal Singh (Defendants) for the unauthorized use of its trademarked business name. The lawsuit, filed under the Lanham Act and related Indiana state laws, addresses issues of trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. My Market claims that Batth Markets’ use of the name “My Market” has caused confusion in the marketplace, posing a threat to the reputation My Market has built through years of branding and business development.

My Market, LLC has been operating as a convenience store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and holds a federal trademark for the service mark “MY MARKET FISH · CHICKEN SANDWICHES · SHRIMP” (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,935,101), which was granted on December 27, 2022. This trademark is used to identify My Market’s services, particularly in the food industry. According to the complaint, on July 9, 2024, My Market’s counsel uncovered that Batth Markets had fraudulently obtained a Certificate of Assumed Business Name, allowing them to operate under the name “My Market” in Kingston, Indiana. This certificate was obtained through an allegedly forged letter, which gave Chhaterpal Singh permission to use the “My Market” name. The letter, purportedly signed by Mark owner, Mohammad A. Ghaffar, was neither authorized nor signed by him, and he claims no knowledge of it being filed.

The lawsuit claims that Batth Markets’ use of the “My Market” name infringes upon My Market’s federally registered trademark. My Market argues that the two businesses are highly similar in name, appearance, and the products they offer, including fried chicken, sandwiches, and other convenience store goods. This, according to the complaint, is likely to confuse customers into believing that Batth Markets is affiliated with or endorsed by My Market. The complaint further states that Batth Markets’ actions are deliberate and exploit My Market’s established goodwill, a claim supported by Batth Markets’ acknowledgment in the fraudulent letter that Ghaffar’s consent was needed to use the name. My Market also asserts that this confusion has resulted in financial harm, including lost sales and reputational damage.

December 9, 2024

Patent Office Issued 234 Patents to Indiana Entities in October 2024

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 234 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2024:

Patent Number	Patent Title
US 12129632 B2	Valve assembly for an electronic faucet
US 12127560 B2	Synergistic fungicidal mixtures and compositions comprising 5-fluoro-4-imino-3-methyl-1-tosyl-3,4-dihydropyrimidin-2(1H)-one for fungal control (SDHI)
US 12127719 B2	Integrated emergency wash and shower system
US 12127942 B2	Customizable augments and methods for acetabular implants
US 12128197 B2	MRI compatible interventional wireguide

December 6, 2024

Protecting the LEGACY: Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Legacy Family Chiropractic

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Legacy Chiropractic, LLC, has filed a complaint against Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims. The complaint centers around Defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of the “LEGACY” trademark, which Plaintiff asserts is integral to its business and reputation. Since 2018, Plaintiff has operated Legacy Chiropractic in Shipshewana, Indiana, building a strong reputation for quality care, and the LEGACY mark has become a valuable asset attracting patients from across the U.S. and Canada.

The complaint states that despite Plaintiff’s established use of the LEGACY mark, Defendant, based in Warsaw, Indiana, began offering chiropractic services under the same name. In late 2019 or early 2020, Rebekah Franklin, the wife of Defendant’s CEO, contacted Plaintiff to inquire about purchasing the trademark, but Plaintiff declined. Defendant subsequently opened its clinic in March 2020, continuing to use the LEGACY mark. Defendant also registered the domain mylegacyfamilychiro.com in June 2020, incorporating the mark further into its marketing. Plaintiff claims that this has caused market confusion and that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s prior trademark rights.

Plaintiff’s legal claims include violations of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition, along with claims of cybersquatting due to Defendant’s use of the domain name. Plaintiff also seeks relief under Indiana state law for unfair competition and requests the cancellation of Defendant’s state trademark registration for “LEGACY FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC,” arguing it was obtained in bad faith.