Articles Posted in Copyright Infringement

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Copyright attorneys for Plaintiff Design Basics LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed four new infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana.

The first lawsuit lists Heller & Sons, Incorporated d/b/a Heller Homes and Heller Development Corporation of Fort Wayne, Indiana as Defendants. They are accused of infringing the following architectural works, which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office:

Title                                      Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista    VA 282-203 & 752-162
Plan No. 1380 – Patterson        VA 314-024 & 726-379
Plan No. 1748 – Sinclair           VA 371-214 & 726-353
Plan No. 1752 – Lancaster        VA 371-204 & 756-041
Plan No. 24077 – Baisden         VA 1-044-287 & 1-042-002

Plaintiff Design Basics was joined in this lawsuit by a second Plaintiff, W. L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ infringing plans are “Arthur Williams,” “David Mathew 2,” “Greyson,” “David Mathew 1” and “Spencer 5.”

The second lawsuit was filed against Defendant Slattery Builders LLC of Fort Wayne, Indiana. It is accused of infringing the following copyrighted works:

Title                                 Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 8520 – Mindoro     VA 1-074-913 & 1-082-723
Plan No. 42065 – Hepburn   VA 1-671-719 & 1-921-774

Design Basics contends that Defendant is infringing with two plans, “Savannah” and “Oakhurst.”

The third lawsuit, filed against Ideal Suburban Homes, Inc. of Roanoke, Indiana asserts infringement of the following works:

Title                                    Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 8093 – Kirby Farm   VA 729-227, 729-218 & 1-432-411
Plan No. 8095 – Sun Valley    VA 729-290 & 729-256

Defendant’s accused plans are entitled “Double Eagle” and “Calloway.”

In the final lawsuit, Design Basics was joined by two additional Plaintiffs, W. L. Martin Home Designs as well as Plan Pros, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska. Defendants in this lawsuit, all Indiana entities, are: Fireside Homes Inc.; Fireside Development Company, LLC d/b/a Fireside Homes Development Company; Harth Homes, Inc.; Willies Development Corporation; and Oakbrook Homes, Inc. d/b/a Juniper Homes, Oakbrook Homes, Willie’s Oakbrook Homes and Riverview Lumber and Building Supply Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs contend that the following intellectual property has been infringed:

Title                                    Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 2226 – Wycliffe       VA 434-195, 889-020 & 1-926-485
Plan No. 2245 – Tyndale        VA 434-205, 710-606 & 1-924-168
Plan No. 2377 – Leighton       VA 485-142, 757-614 & 1-942-396
Plan No. 2578 – Kaiser          VA 524-251, 710-606 & 1-928-399
Plan No. 2761 – Mayberry      VA 513-792, 710-606 & 1-926-488
Plan No. 2907 – Ashley         VA 624-090, 624-091 & 826-741
Plan No. 2952 – Francis         VA 624-098, 624-099 & 784-226
Plan No. 8030 – Burton Place VA 729-255 & 748-980
Plan No. 8093 – Kirby Farm    VA 729-218 & 729-227

In this complaint, the following plans are accused: The Concept Home, Model 1400, Model 1200, Model 1600, Model 1650, Model 1700, Model 1900, Model 1800, Model 1300, Model 1478, Model 1759, Model 1971, and Model 2295.

Design Basics seeks damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell, a copyright lawyer and professional photographer, filed three more lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant in the first lawsuit is Progressive Urban Management Associates of Denver, Colorado. The second lawsuit lists National Healthy Start Association of Washington, D.C. as Defendant. In the third lawsuit, an individual, Chris Young, is listed as Defendant.

In each of these lawsuits, Bell asserts copyright infringement of a photo, entitled “Indianapolis Photo,” which has been registered as Copyright Registration No. VA0001785115 by the U.S. Copyright Office. Each complaint also lists a count of unfair competition.

As with prior complaints, Bell asserts not merely copyright infringement but willful conduct, contending that Defendants in each lawsuit acted “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” He seeks the maximum statutory damages allowable as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees from all Defendants.

Practice Tip: Bell, who has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years alleging infringement of the “Indianapolis Photo” as well as the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” (the latter is not at issue in any of these lawsuits), has been discussed on this site before. See:

• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Continue reading

Northern District of Indiana – Trademark counsel for Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed two new copyright infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of copyrighted architectural plans.

The first lawsuit, filed in the Fort Wayne Division, lists two Defendants, Westport Homes of Fort Wayne, Inc. and Westport Homes, Inc. They are accused of infringing Plaintiff’s “Plan No. 3090 – Jarrett,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 624-154 and 624-153. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ infringing plans are marketed under the names Fairfield and Fairmont.

The second lawsuit was filed in the Hammond Division against Defendant Precision Homes, Inc. doing business as Precision Construction, Inc. and Precision Homes of Indiana, Inc. A second Plaintiff, W.L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, was listed in this lawsuit.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs state that Precision Homes offers six architectural plans, which are offered under the names Richmond, Raleigh, Durham, Kara, Abigail and Auburn, that infringe upon copyrighted works. Plaintiffs state that three copyrighted plans were infringed: “Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 282-203 & 752-162; “Plan No. 3588 – Stratman,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 682-254, 682-253 & 756-041; and “Plan No. 24120 – Langlade,” Copyright Registration No. VA 1-073-400.

In both cases, the court is asked to order damages, equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana, a copyright attorney and professional photographer, filed a new batch of lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana.

In each lawsuit, Bell asserts infringement of his intellectual property rights under Copyright Registration No. VA0001785115. This copyright registration, issued by the U.S. Copyright Office, covers photos entitled “Indianapolis Photo” and “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.” Each complaint also lists a count of unfair competition.

Defendants in the eight new lawsuits are as follows:

• Sunbelt Business Advisors of Indiana of Indianapolis, Indiana
• Marian University of Indianapolis, Indiana
• Top Class Moving, Inc. of Morton Grove, Illinois
• Profusion 360, LLC of La Mirada, California
• Cynthia Vivona and Megan Peyton, both of Fishers, Indiana
• Steve Knapp and Judgment Recovery of Indiana, both of Greenwood, Indiana
• AmWINS Group Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana

• Future Technology Solutions, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana

Bell seeks the maximum statutory damages allowable, contending in each lawsuit that Defendant(s) is/are willfully infringing “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” Bell seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees from all Defendants.

Practice Tip: Bell, a frequent litigant, has been discussed here before. See:

• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Continue reading

New Albany, Indiana – Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska initiated litigation in the Southern District of Indiana. It alleges that Defendant Premier Homes of Southern Indiana, Inc. of Clarksville, Indiana infringed a copyrighted architectural plan.

The architectural work at issue in this lawsuit is Design Basic’s “Plan No. 6731 – Tollefson,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 1-056-612 and 1-070-148.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Premier Homes infringed its copyrighted material by publishing, distributing, marketing, advertising and/or constructing in the marketplace designs offered as “Skylre” and “Skylre with Bonus Room.”

In this complaint, filed by Indiana copyright attorneys for Plaintiff, the court is asked to order equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – An attorney for Plaintiff Megan Aroon Duncanson of Florida commenced litigation in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement.

Defendants in this lawsuit are Wine and Canvas IP Holdings LLC (Indianapolis, Indiana) (“IP Holdings”) and the following entities, which Plaintiff contends are “licensees” of Wine and Canvas IP Holdings: Wine and Canvas Development, LLC (Indianapolis, Indiana), WNC of Cincinnati LLC (Ohio), WNC of Columbus LLC (Ohio), WNC of Dayton LLC (Ohio), WNC of Detroit LLC (Michigan), WNC of Des Moines LLC (Iowa), WNC of Fort Wayne LLC (Indiana), WNC of Las Vegas LLC (Nevada), WNC of Napa Sonoma LLC (California), WNC of Odessa LLC (Texas), WNC of Portland LLC (Oregon), WNC of South Bend LLC (Indiana), WNC of San Francisco LLC (California), Tamara McCracken a/k/a Tamra Scott (Indiana) and Anthony Scott (Indiana).

Under the business names “Wine and Canvas” and “Wine & Canvas,” Defendants offer art classes to students who paint while enjoying cocktails. Each class involves a “Featured Painting” that the students paint, which is purportedly selected by a licensee from a portfolio maintained by IP Holdings. That painting is also allegedly displayed on the IP Holdings website prior to the class. Plaintiff contends that IP holdings “often credits the author of the painting as simply ‘Wine and Canvas.'”

Plaintiff contends that by using her works, Defendants infringed the following copyrights-in-suit, which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office:

The following two works were copyrighted as part of collections titled “Published Paintings 2006” and “Published Paintings 2008” and are also at issue in the lawsuit:

In this federal lawsuit filed under the Copyright Act, Plaintiff avers direct, contributory, and vicarious contributory copyright infringement of her rights to reproduce, make derivative works, and publicly display her works. The copyright lawyer for Plaintiff lists 36 counts in total, with the first 7 asserting copyright infringement before registration of the works and the remainder asserting infringement after registration.

Plaintiff Duncanson contends that both IP Holdings and its licensees acted willfully and knowingly. She seeks various forms of relief, including equitable relief; damages, with enhanced damages for acts found to be willful; costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: Wine & Canvas has litigated in Indiana federal courts in the past alleging infringement of its trademark. See, e.g.:

• Wine & Canvas Development Sues YN Canvas & Art Uncorked for Trademark Infringement of the WC Marks
• Wine & Canvas Litigation Narrowed and Clarified by Court
• Southern District of Indiana Dismisses Wine & Canvas’ Suit for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
• Court Strikes Response Brief Due to Untimely, Overlong Filing

• Trademark Plaintiff Abused Legal Process; Trademark Defendant Awarded an Additional $175,000 in Attorneys’ Fees

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed two additional lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana. Both complaints, filed by Indiana attorneys for Design Basics, allege violations of copyright law.

Defendant in the first lawsuit is Straight Talk Construction, Inc. of Goshen, Indiana. Defendants in the second lawsuit are W R Birkey & Associates Inc., doing business as Birkey Homes and W.R. Birkey Realty; and Wayne Birkey, doing business as Birkey Homes and W.R. Birkey Realty of Granger, Indiana (collectively, “Birkey”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants in both lawsuits infringed its copyrighted architectural designs, which have been filed with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Copyrights alleged to have been infringed by Straight Talk:

Title                                    Registration Certificate Nos. 

Plan No. 8095 – Sun Valley   VA 729-290, 729-256
Plan No. 3121 – Bellamy       VA 624-158, 624-159 & 710-606

Plaintiff contends that Straight Talk committed infringement when it published, distributed, marketed, advertised and/or constructed in the marketplace Design Basics’ copyrighted architectural designs, which were offered by Straight Talk as “The Jordan,” “The 1009 Parade Home” and “Sunrise.”

Copyrights alleged to have been infringed by Birkey:

Title                                       Registration Certificate Nos. 

Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista    VA 282-203, 694-095 & 752-162
Plan No. 1330 – Trenton           VA 314-016, 694-094 & 756-041
Plan No. 1455 – Newberry         VA 344-857, 694-093 & 710-605
Plan No. 1559 – Bancroft          VA 344-870, 694-094 & 752-162
Plan No. 1752 – Lancaster        VA 371-204, 694-094 & 756-041
Plan No. 2244 – Standley          VA 434-218 & 752-162
Plan No. 2249 – Normandy        VA 434-208, 694-088 & 726-372
Plan No. 2285 – Prairie              VA 467-639, 694-094, 726-354& 1-921-718
Plan No. 2408 – Crawford          VA 485-123, 694-093, 756-041& 1-921-776
Plan No. 2414 – Stanton            VA 485-125, 694-093, 726-361& 1-926-487
Plan No. 2656 – Castelar           VA 542-694, 826-741 & 1-926-492
Plan No. 2701 – Ambrose          VA 524-308, 694-093, 710-606& 1-926-479
Plan No. 2702 – Ellison              VA 542-690 & 1-926-477

The Birkey Defendants are alleged to have infringed Plaintiff’s works by copying, publishing, distributing, advertising, marketing, selling and/or constructing in the marketplace Plaintiff’s copyrighted material. The purportedly infringing designs are marketed by Birkey under the following model names: Andrea, Appleton, Ashbury, Belmont, Bridgeport, Britney, Hallbrook, Heather Lake, Kensington, Kingsbury, Megan, Miranda, Normandy, Oakridge, Sawyer, Sherwood, Sinclair, and Zachery.

Design Basics seeks equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Design Basics has filed numerous federal complaints alleging copyright infringement. In Indiana, it has filed 10 separate lawsuits since February: Design Basics Sues Builders and Others Alleging Infringement of Copyrighted Architectural Designs, Design Basics Files Additional Indiana Lawsuit and Plan Pros Added as Plaintiff in Newest Design Basics Lawsuit. Nationwide, Design Basics, or entities that appear to be related to the company, has filed more than 60 intellectual property lawsuits since 2008 in the federal courts of Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

Continue reading