False Designation of Origin

November 27, 2017

New York Trademark Litigation: Indiana-Based AM General Sues Activision over Call of Duty Videogame

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, AM General LLC, of South Bend, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Activision Blizzard, Inc., and Activision Publishing, Inc., both of Santa Monica, California and Major League Gaming Corp., of New York, New York; infringed its rights for the Trademark Registrations of HUMVEE and HMMWV and the trade dress of its HUMVEE brand vehicles. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment and post judgment interest.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s series of Call of Duty videogames have consistently infringed by incorporating and allowing players to control vehicles in-game that, allegedly, infringe on Plaintiff’s real-life protected marks. In the complaint, Plaintiff points to various in-game levels that require the player to control a vehicle that allegedly copies the registered trade dress elements, and other moments in the game where the player sees or interacts with vehicles resembling Humvees. Plaintiff also notes in-game dialogue and marks written on the vehicles that mention “Humvee” specifically.

April 10, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: IHOP and Applebee’s Sued on Allegations of Infringement of Splenda Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Heartland Consumer Products LLC and TC Heartland LLC, of Carmel, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the Indiana State Trademark Act, and the common law of the State of Indiana.

At issue are trademarks covering Splenda®-brand sweetener, which has been approved for use in over 80 countries and used in more than 4000 products globally. In this Indiana litigation, Heartland claims that some or all of the following trademarks have been infringed: 1544079, 3346910; 4172135, 4165028, 4301712, 4172136, 4165029,4122311, 4187229, 4202774, 4230392, 4238101, 4106164, 4664653, and 4744600. These trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, Heartland claims ownership of the following pending applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504.

Defendants in the lawsuit are DineEquity, Inc., Applebee’s Franchisor LLC, Applebee’s Restaurants LLC, Applebee’s Services, Inc., International House of Pancakes, LLC f/k/a International House of Pancakes, Inc., IHOP Franchising LLC, IHOP Franchise Company, LLC and IHOP Franchisor LLC. Plaintiff asserts that all Defendants have a principal place of business in Glendale, California. They are accused of leading customers to believe that they offer Splenda-brand sweetener when they do not. Plaintiff contends that instead of American-made Splenda, the product offered to the customers is, in fact, “a lower-quality product of China.”

Indiana trademark attorneys for Heartland sued in federal court. They assert:

Count I: Common Law Trademark Infringement and Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
Count II: False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Count III: Unfair Competition
Count IV: Trademark Dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
Count V: Trademark Dilution under I.C. 24-2-1-13.5
Count VII [sic]: Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Count VIII: Corrective Advertising Damages

Plaintiff asks the court for injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. They also seek various types of damages, including actual, statutory, punitive and treble damages.

March 24, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Bosch Accuses Indiana Man of Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Robert Bosch, GmbH of Stuttgart, Germany and Robert Bosch, LLC of Broadview, Illinois sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair competition.

At issue in this Indiana lawsuit are the following trademarks, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

MARK

REG. NO

REG. DATE

BOSCH

1,637,401

Mar. 12, 1991

633,563

Aug. 28, 1956

Defendants in the litigation are Joshua Rayner of Portage, Indiana as well as ten unnamed “Doe” Defendants. They are accused of “advertising, offering for sale and sale of counterfeit automotive parts” that bear unauthorized copies of Bosch trademarks.
Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiffs list the following claims in this federal lawsuit:

Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting in Violation of Sections 32 and 34(d)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act
Count II: Trademark Infringement in Violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
Count III: Unfair Competition in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
Count IV: False Advertising in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief, including statutory damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

March 10, 2017

Indiana Trademark Law: Court Rules for Winnebago on Trade Dress Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. of the Northern District of Indiana dismissed claims concerning trade dress infringement.

In this Indiana trademark lawsuit, Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana sued Winnebago Industries, Inc. of Forest City, Iowa and its subsidiary Winnebago of Indiana, LLC alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and false and misleading representations.

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC filed a partial motion to dismiss with the court, arguing that Forest River had neither sufficiently identified the features that constituted the claimed trade dress nor provided any factual support for its assertion that such features were non-functional.

The court noted that “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. The claim is deemed plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

In this litigation, such a showing required that Forest River define its trade dress. It must also plead sufficient facts to show that the claimed trade dress is nonfunctional, has acquired secondary meaning and that a likelihood of confusion exists between its trade dress and Winnebago’s trade dress.

The court agreed with Winnebago, concluding that Plaintiff had relied on “conclusory and meaningless” assertions in its pleadings. Consequently, it granted Winnebago’s motion and dismissed without prejudice Forest River’s claims concerning trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) as well as similar claims made under common law.

Overhauser Law Offices represented Winnebago in obtaining this successful order dismissing the trade dress claims.

March 1, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Choice Hotels Alleges Former Franchisee is Infringing Econo Lodge Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Lafayette, Indiana – Choice Hotels International, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement under federal and Indiana law.

Choice Hotels is in the business of franchising hotels. It offers hotel and motel services under the following brands: CAMBRIA HOTELS & SUITES®, COMFORT INN®, COMFORT SUITES®, QUALITY®, SLEEP IN®, CLARION®, MAINSTAY SUITES®, SUBURBAN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL®, ECONO LODGE®, and RODEWAY INN®.

At issue in this Indiana trademark litigation is the Econo Lodge family of trademarks. These trademarks include U.S. Trademark Nos.:

February 17, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Dispute Between Two Veterans’ Museums Heads to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Henager Family Museum, Inc d/b/a National Veterans Memorial of Buckskin, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement.

Plaintiff operates a military memorial in Indiana under the trademark “NATIONAL VETERANS MEMORIAL,” U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,420,974. That trademark was filed “in connection with promoting public awareness of the need for reconciliation and recognition by all veterans” and was issued on April 29, 2008 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In this Indiana litigation, Henager states that Columbus Downtown Development Corp. (“CDDC”) of Columbus, Ohio is currently developing a museum, scheduled to open in 2018, to be operated under the name “NATIONAL VETERANS MEMORIAL & MUSEUM.” Henager states that CDDC’s use of this name in a state adjoining Indiana, and in conjunction with the offering of the same type of services, is likely to cause confusion or deceive consumers. It also contends that CDDC’s use of the purportedly similar name has resulted in CDDC being unjustly enriched at Henager’s expense.

December 30, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Super 8 Sues Former Franchisees for Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. f/k/a Super 8 Motels, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and other wrongdoings.

Plaintiff Super 8 operates a franchise system for guest lodging. It claims ownership to the SUPER 8® service mark as well as various related trade names, trademarks and service marks, some of which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It estimates the value of the entity’s goodwill to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.

In this Indiana intellectual property lawsuit, Super 8 alleges that former franchisees have violated the terms of a franchise agreement entered into with Super 8. Three Indianapolis Defendants were listed: Auburn Lodging Associates, LLP (“ALA”), Kokila Patel and Dilip Patel. A fourth Defendant Chicago Capital Holdings, LLC (“CCH”) of Hinsdale, Illinois was also named.

December 27, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Carmel Golf Merchant Accused of Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs Acushnet Company of Fairhaven, Massachusetts, Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. of Huntington Beach, California and Dunlop Sports Co. Ltd. of Hyogo, Japan filed a trademark lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. This intellectual property litigation, commenced by an Indiana trademark litigator for Plaintiffs, was filed against both an individual and a business entity.

Listed as Defendants in this lawsuit are Giorgio Nunns a/k/a George Nunns a/k/a Georgie Nunns a/k/a Giorgio, an individual, and Custom Golf Solutions, LLC, individually and jointly, doing business under the names “bogie’s nearly new golf,” “gnunns81” and “golfcustomsolutions15.” Defendants operate in Indianapolis and Carmel, Indiana.

Defendants are accused of engaging in the sale of counterfeit products and infringing upon Plaintiffs’ trademarks. The following trademarks, to which Acushnet claims ownership and/or an exclusive license, are at issue:

Trademark	Registration No.	Registration Date	Class/Goods
	1,155,766	26 May 1981	IC 28: golf equipment, namely golf balls, golf clubs and golf bags.
	3,376,961	5 February 2008	IC 24: golf towels IC 25: golf clothing, namely jackets, shirts, hats and visors. IC 28: golf equipment, namely golf putters, golf club head covers, golf club grips and divot tools.
	2,620,432	17 September 2002	IC 28: golf clubs and accessories, namely golf tees, golf gloves, golf bags, golf putters, golf drivers, golf woods, golf irons, golf green repair tools, golf club covers and golf bag covers.
	3,421,373	6 May 2008	IC 28: golf equipment, namely golf bags.

December 19, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Founding Member of Museum Registers Trademark Under His Own Name, Sues Museum for Use

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Richard Litov of Evansville, Indiana sued Freedom Heritage Museum, Inc., of Evansville, Indiana alleging trademark infringement. Litov asserts claims under both federal and Indiana law.

Litov claims that he conceived the idea for the museum – a collection of exhibits and artifacts from the World War II era – as well as the museum’s name, stating that he served as its founding president and a founding board member. He asserts that the museum used the trademarked name pursuant to permission that he granted “as president and board member” of the museum.

The trademark in question has been registered under Litov’s name as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,939,292. Litov states in his complaint that the registration covers the words FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM and an associated design. The word portion of the trademark, as listed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s website, is FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM, EST. 2012, EVANSVILLE INDIANA. The application for the trademark registration was filed on July 6, 2015 and granted on April 19, 2016.

November 25, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Dunkin’ Donuts Sued on Allegations of Deceiving Consumers with Fake Splenda

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Heartland Consumer Products LLC of Carmel, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, as well as related wrongdoing under the Indiana State Trademark Act, the common law of the State of Indiana and the Indiana Crime Victims Act. The intellectual property at issue pertains to Splenda®, a Heartland trademark under which it offers sucralose, a low-calorie sweetener.

Defendants in the litigation are Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC of Canton, Massachusetts. They are accused of “deceiving customers into believing the Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants carry Splenda® Brand Sweetener,” by both tacitly and affirmatively misrepresenting that the non-Splenda sucralose product that the Dunkin’ Defendants offer is, in fact, Heartland’s Splenda. Plaintiff contends that consumers were confused about whether the sweetener that the Dunkin’ Defendants offered was Splenda and that some have complained that adding the other sweetener to their Dunkin’ Donuts products imparted a “funny taste.”

Defendants discontinued their agreement to purchase and offer Heartland’s Splenda in April 2016. According to the Indiana complaint, following that decision, Defendants began offering sweetener in yellow packets similar to the single-serving packets in which Splenda is offered to the public. Plaintiff contends that, when asked, Defendants in a “clear majority of stores affirmatively represented, through their agents or employees, that non-Splenda® sucralose sweetener was instead Splenda® Brand Sweetener.” Plaintiff further contends that Dunkin’ Defendants are misappropriating Plaintiff’s trademarked “Sweet Swaps®” by the use of a similar term “Smart Swaps.”