False Designation of Origin

September 15, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Allison Transmission Alleges Infringement of TES 295 Trademarks

Indianapolis, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Allison Transmission, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit against Fleetpride, Inc. of Irving, Texas asserting trademark infringement.

Plaintiff Allison is a manufacturer of medium- and heavy-duty automatic transmissions. In conjunction with the manufacture and sale of transmissions, Allison developed a standard under which it would certify transmission fluids as approved for use in its transmissions. This standard, “TES 295,” is incorporated into a family of trademarks, Reg. No. 4,379,699, Reg. No. 4,166,531 and Reg. No. 4,993,880, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In 2015, Allison discovered what it alleges was an infringing use of the TES 295 trademark by Defendant Fleetpride. Allison contends that Fleetpride offered transmission oil under the name PRIMATECH TES295 and used a version of Allison’s TES 295 trademarks, both in its product numbers and its advertising. Trademark lawyers for Allison contacted Fleetpride to address Allison’s concerns, but no resolution was reached.

This litigation, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, followed. In the complaint, filed yesterday in federal court, Fleetpride is accused of “intentional, willful, and bad faith attempts to deceive or to create mistake or confusion in the minds of customers” as a result of its use of “TES295.” The lawsuit lists the following claims for relief:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally Registered Trademark (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1))
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(A))
• Count III: Common Law Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement

• Count IV: False Description of Goods

Allison is seeking damages, including treble damages, along with injunctive relief, costs of the lawsuit and attorneys’ fees.

August 19, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Get 2 Go, Its Operators and Related Stores Sued for Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. and National Tobacco Company, L.P., both of Louisville, Kentucky, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of various registered trademarks covering ZIG-ZAG® roll-your-own cigarette papers and accessories. In addition to trademark infringement under federal law, Plaintiffs allege copyright infringement, false designation of origin and trade dress infringement under federal law as well as trademark infringement and unfair competition under Indiana common law.

Multiple Defendants, most of Fort Wayne, Indiana, are named in this intellectual property lawsuit: KPC Distributor Inc.; Kuldeep Singh; Paramjit Singh; Charanjit Singh; Burger’s, Inc., d.b.a. Burger Dairy; JGM Stores Inc., d.b.a. Burger Dairy II; Kirandeep, Inc., d.b.a. Crescent Corner Express; KSL Stores Inc., d.b.a. Get 2 Go #10; KSL Holdings Inc., d.b.a. Get 2 Go #13; Coliseum Quick Mart Inc., a.k.a. Get 2 Go #15; Calhoun Store Inc., a.k.a. Get 2 Go 16; KPC Brothers Inc., a.k.a. Get 2 Go #17 d.b.a. Get 2 Go; Get 2 Go #18; Virk Brothers Enterprises Inc., a.k.a. Get 2 Go 19, d.b.a. Shell Get 2 Go #19; JAT Boyz Stores Inc., a.k.a Harlan Quick Stop; KPC Investments LLC, a.k.a. Iceway Express; John Does 1-10; and XYZ Companies 1-10.

At issue in this Indiana lawsuit are the following trademarks: Registration No. 610,530 for ZIG-ZAG (stylized), Registration No. 1,127,946 for ZIG-ZAG (text), Registration No. 2,169,540 for Smoking Man (design with circle border), Registration No.2,169,549 for Smoking Man (design with no border), Registration Nos. 2,664,694 and 2,664,695 for North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. (design), and Registration Nos. 2,610,473 and 2,635,446 for North Atlantic Operating Company (text), all of which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The ZIG-ZAG trademarks are owned by a French company, Bolloré, S.A., which is not a party to this litigation, and are licensed to Plaintiff North Atlantic.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a widespread scheme to acquire, sell and/or distribute counterfeit products bearing various registered trademarks and/or copyrighted text that Plaintiffs allege is protected by law. This text includes the phrase “Distributed by North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc.”

Plaintiffs further contend that one or more Defendants’ conduct was willful. They contend that this was demonstrated on more than one occasion when a North Atlantic representative requested a receipt for the purchase of accused goods and this request was refused. On one occasion, when the representative insisted on a receipt, Plaintiffs state that “Defendant KPC Distributor ripped the receipt in two pieces, keeping the piece that displayed Defendant KPC Distributor’s contact information for itself.”

In this Indiana intellectual property lawsuit, filed by trademark litigators for Plaintiffs, Defendants are accused of having sold “dozens of cartons and hundreds of booklets of confirmed counterfeit ZIG-ZAG® Orange to undercover North Atlantic representatives.” Plaintiffs state the following claims:

• Federal Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
• False Designation of Origin and Trademark/Trade Dress Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1225(a))
• Federal Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.)
• Common Law Unfair Competition

• Common Law Trademark Infringement

Plaintiffs ask the federal court for damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

July 18, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Eye 4 Group Sues Over Use of Eyefourgroup.com

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Eye 4 Group, LLC Corporation (“E4G”) of Fishers, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. Defendants are Indianapolis Signworks, Inc. (“ISW”) of Indianapolis, Indiana and Andrew Chapman of Carmel, Indiana, the owner of ISW.

Plaintiff E4G is in the business of graphic design, sign manufacturing, metal fabrication, promotional material and apparel. It owns a registration for the trademark EYE 4 GROUP, Reg. No. 4,694,655, which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It has also an application for the registration of a second trademark for EYE 4, pending under Serial No. 87/018,205.

E4G states that Defendant ISW is a direct competitor in the business of making signs as well as associated tools and products. E4G, which owns and operates the website eye4group.com, contends that ISW has used the internet domain name “eyefourgroup.com” and, in doing so, has infringed E4G’s intellectual property. E4G asserts that Defendants’ actions constitute a knowing infringement of its trademark rights and that those actions were intentional, willful and in bad faith.

In this Indiana lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges direct and contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act; dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act; violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and related wrongdoing under Indiana state law.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary relief, including punitive damages, attorney fees and costs of the litigation.

June 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Brew Pub Accused of Infringing Use of Yeti Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Great Divide Brewing Company of Denver, Colorado filed an infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc. of Jeffersonville, Indiana.

Defendant is listed in the complaint as the owner of a restaurant and brewery named “Red Yeti Brewing Co.” a/k/a “Red Yeti Restaurant and Brewpub.” The complaint asserts that Red Yeti Brewing Co. wrongfully employs the term “Yeti” and a yeti design in its marketing.

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Red Yeti’s conduct infringes two of its trademarks, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,957,257 for a Yeti word mark and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,115,050 for a Yeti design mark. Both have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff asserts that Red Yeti’s actions constitute a deliberate attempt to trade upon Defendant’s goodwill and reputation and that its actions are willful and malicious. In this Indiana federal lawsuit, filed by trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, the following claims for relief are listed:

• Trademark Infringement in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
• Unfair Competition – False Designation of Origin in Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
• Federal Dilution
• Common Law Unfair Competition
• Common Law Trademark Infringement

• Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-113

Great Divide seeks damages, including punitive damages, along with equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

May 12, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Usage of “Hyperpure” Alleged to Infringe Hydrapure Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – A trademark attorney for Plaintiff NIBCO Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana commenced trademark infringement litigation in the Northern District of Indiana.

Defendant in the litigation is Legend Valve & Fitting, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan. It is accused of infringing NIBCO’s HYDRAPURE trademark, which has been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Trademark Registration Nos. 4,296,125 and 4,314,186 in conjunction with the sale of metal pipe fittings.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s use of HYPERPURE to market its goods creates an identical commercial impression to Plaintiff’s HYDRAPURE trademark. Calling Defendant’s use “a reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation” of its own trademark, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s use of HYPERPURE will confuse consumers as to the source of the goods.

Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Legend chose the HYPERPURE mark in bad faith in an attempt to associate Defendant’s products with Plaintiff’s trademark and, in so doing, appropriate the goodwill that Plaintiff has built in the brand.

In this Indiana lawsuit, a trademark lawyer for NIBCO lists the following claims:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition/False Designation of Origin
• Count III: Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition

• Count V: Federal Trademark Dilution

NIBCO asks the court for equitable relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and attorney fees.

May 2, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Federal Lawsuit Filed Over Use of “Co-op” Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark lawsuit against Coop Fuels Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina. The complaint asserts direct and contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act as well as claims under Indiana law.

At issue are two trademarks owned by Countrymark, U.S. Registration Nos. 2,657,529 and 2,679,308 for the CO-OP trademark, which have been registered with the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Defendant Coop Fuels is alleged to have infringed these trademarks by using “coop” to market its competing products.

Additionally, Countrymark contends that Coop Fuels has also knowingly induced and materially contributed to its retail partners’ unauthorized adoption and use of Countrymark’s trademarks.

In this lawsuit, Indiana trademark lawyers for Countrymark list the following allegations of wrongdoing:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally Registered Marks – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count III: Contributory Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count V: Deception – Indiana Code § 35-43-5-3(a)(6)
• Count VI: Conversion – Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3

• Count VII: Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act- Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1

Countrymark asks the federal court for injunctive relief, actual and treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

April 27, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Dispute Between Kimball and Coaster Heads to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Plaintiff Kimball International, Inc. (“Kimball”) of Jasper, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant COA, Inc. d/b/a Coaster Company of America (“Coaster”) of Santa Fe Springs, California is accused of infringing Kimball’s Trademark KIMBALL, Reg. No. 1,180,193, which has been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, by using the trademark without authorization.

In addition to direct trademark infringement, Kimball asserts counts of contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act as well as violations of the statutes and common law of the State of Indiana.

In particular, Kimball asserts that some of Coaster’s retail partners have infringed the KIMBALL trademark at Coaster’s behest, including retail giant Sears. As an example of this alleged contributory infringement, Kimball cites Bradley Home Furnishings’ website, which Kimball states features an unauthorized “Kimball Bedroom Collection” that originated from Defendant Coaster:

Kimball indicates in the complaint that it first informed Defendant less than a month before this lawsuit was filed that it believed it held superior rights to the KIMBALL trademark but states that Coaster “continues its unlawful use of the KIMBALL Mark and continues to encourage, induce, and materially contribute to its retail partners’ unlawful use of the KIMBALL Mark.”

In this litigation, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer for Kimball, the following counts are alleged:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally Registered Marks – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count III: Contributory Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count V: Deception – Indiana Code § 35-43-5-3(a)(6)
• Count VI: Conversion – Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3

• Count VII: Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act – Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1

Among other remedies, Kimball seeks equitable relief, actual and treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

April 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark and Copyright Litigation: Coach Sues Indiana Retailer on Allegations of Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Intellectual property attorneys for Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. of New York, New York and Coach Services, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida (collectively, “Coach”) filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana.

Coach contends that Defendants Zip Thru Mart, Charles Estok Sr., and Janice Estok, all of Knox, Indiana, infringed various Coach trademarks, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition to trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Coach asserts that Defendants have committed trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, as well as trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment under Indiana common law.

Coach’s allegations stem from Defendants’ purported “designing, manufacturing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale” products that bear counterfeit Coach trademarks. Defendants are further accused of having engaged in this behavior “negligently and/or knowingly and intentionally, with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Coach’s rights, or with bad faith.”

In support of its allegations of infringement and related conduct, Coach states that it sent an investigator to the Zip Thru Mart. Its investigator saw multiple items bearing Coach trademarks, which Coach contends were counterfeit. Additional goods bearing purportedly counterfeit trademarks were seized by a Homeland Security Investigations officer during a subsequent visit to the business.

The intellectual property listed in this litigation includes numerous trademarks for “Coach,” “Coach New York,” “CC,” “Poppy” and similar trademarks. Coach also claims infringement of its copyrights, listing copyright registrations, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, for its “Legacy Stripe” design (registration number VA000704542) “Signature C” design (registration number VA0001228917), “Op Art” design (registration number VA0001694574) and “Horse & Carriage” design (registration number VA0001714051).

In this Indiana lawsuit, filed by trademark and copyright attorneys for Coach, the intellectual property claims are listed as follows:

• Count I: Trademark Counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: Trademark Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count III: Trade Dress Infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count IV: False Designation of Origin and False Advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count V: Trademark Dilution, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
• Count VI: Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 501
• Count VII: Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count VIII: Common Law Unfair Competition

• Count IX: Unjust Enrichment

In addition to statutory damages of $2 million per counterfeit mark, per type of counterfeit good, Coach seeks equitable relief; additional damages, both statutory and punitive; costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Coach has a history of requesting statutory damages that are considerably in excess of what has eventually been awarded by the courts. For example, in Coach, Inc. v. Paula’s Store Sportwear LLC, 2014 WL 347893 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2014), Coach requested $800,000 in statutory damages – $100,000 for each of eight counterfeited marks – from a shop from which four counterfeit Coach wallets and two counterfeit Coach handbags had been seized. When awarding damages to Coach, the court noted that the retail value of the six counterfeit items was less than $1500 and awarded $5000 for each of the eight marks that had been counterfeited, multiplied by the two types of goods, for a total statutory damages award of $80,000.

March 28, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Great American Bagel Sues Over Sign Modified to Read “Great American Eagle”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Plaintiff The Great American Bagel Enterprises, Inc. (“GAB”) of Westmont, Illinois filed a trademark infringement complaint in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendants United HBA Corporation and Harbhajan Singh, d/b/a The Great American Eagle, both of Evansville, Indiana.

GAB owns, operates and franchises food-products stores known as The Great American Bagel. It owns a trademark for “The Great American Bagel,” Trademark Registration No. 2,015,665, which is comprised of the phrase “The Great American Bagel” with stars and bands. The mark has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Defendant United HBA operates a gas station and convenience store, which offers retail food products. Defendant Singh is listed as the President and sole principal of United HBA. GAB contends that United HBA is displaying a sign that had previously been used as signage for a The Great American Bagel store. GAB states that Defendants modified “Bagel” to read “Eagle” by removing the “B” and adding an “E” but that the sign is otherwise unaltered.

GAB alleges infringement of its trademark, stating that Defendants’ use of the modified sign has caused customers to confuse the food products offered by GAB with those offered by Defendants. In this federal lawsuit, filed by an Indiana trademark attorney, the following claims are made:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: False Designation of Origin, False Advertising and Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act Section 43(A)
• Count III: Unfair Competition – Trade Name Infringement
• Count IV: Unfair Competition – Passing Off

• Count V: Unjust Enrichment

GAB seeks equitable relief, damages, including punitive damages; costs and attorney’s fees.

March 21, 2016

Indiana Trademark and Copyright Litigation: Sweetwater Contends Hello Music Copied its Website, Infringed its Intellectual Property

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Indiana intellectual property lawyers for Plaintiff Sweetwater Sound, Inc. (“Sweetwater”) of Fort Wayne, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hello Music, LLC of Austin, Texas infringed its trademarks, which have registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Trademark Nos. 3,652,255 and 3,652,249. In addition, Sweetwater Sound contends that Hello Music infringed its copyright, issued by the U.S. Copyright Office as TX 8-064-067, which protects the contents of its website. Other counts of alleged wrongdoing, including claims under Indiana law, have been asserted.

Hello Music is accused of duplicating copyrighted content from Sweetwater’s website and using that protected content on its own website. Sweetwater contends that part of the content purportedly copied includes the Sweetwater trademark. Sweetwater also asserts that these acts by Hello Music constitute a willful and deliberate attempt to trade on Sweetwater’s goodwill.

In the complaint, filed in federal court Friday, the following claims are made:

• Count I: Copyright Infringement
• Count II: Trademark Infringement (False Designation of Origin)
• Count III: Trademark Dilution

• Count IV: Unfair Competition

Sweetwater asks the court to grant equitable relief, including the destruction of infringing materials. It also seeks actual and treble damages, disgorgement of all profits that resulted from infringing acts, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.