Articles Posted in INND News

Fort Wayne, IndianaGroup Dekko, Inc. and its subsidiary, Furnlite, Inc., have initiated legal proceedings against Metro Light & Power, LLC. The crux of the dispute lies in allegations of trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, with Dekko and Furnlite seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate Metro’s claims.

Metro Light & Power, LLC, based in Teaneck, New Jersey, has accused Dekko and Furnlite of infringing upon its trade dress rights. Specifically, Metro contends that Dekko’s Furnlite products bear a striking resemblance to Metro’s Bezel products, leading to consumer confusion. Metro has threatened legal action unless Dekko and Furnlite cease production and sales of their allegedly infringing products.Outlet-300x157In response to Metro’s allegations, Dekko and Furnlite have taken a firm stance, denying any wrongdoing. They assert that their products do not infringe upon Metro’s trade dress rights. Moreover, they argue that trade dress protection does not extend to functional features of a product, and they maintain that their own design patents predate Metro’s establishment.

Central to the dispute is the validity of Metro’s trade dress. Trade dress protection applies to the overall appearance of a product, but only if it serves as a source identifier and is non-functional. Dekko and Furnlite contend that Metro’s trade dress lacks distinctiveness and does not function as a source identifier. They argue that the design features highlighted by Metro serve functional purposes rather than acting as distinctive identifiers.

In a recent legal action, photographer Ivan Radic has filed suit against AllCity Adjusting LLC and Zor Development LLC for allegedly infringing upon his intellectual property rights. According to Radic, he is a seasoned professional photographer known for his diverse portfolio and creative styles.  He has accused the defendants of unauthorized use and distribution of his copyrighted work.

The complaint explains that the heart of the matter lies in Radic’s creation, a photograph titled “Plaster falling off the ceiling,” crafted in 2020 and officially registered under copyright law in 2021. Radic claims this work, publicly displayed on his Flickr page, was accompanied by explicit copyright management information and a denial of usage rights to the public.https://www.iniplaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/366/2024/01/1200px-US-CopyrightOffice-Seal.svg_-300x300.png

Court documents state that Defendant AllCity Adjusting LLC, is a family-owned claims company aiding property owners in insurance claims and disaster relief.  Radic has accused AllCity and Zor Development LLC, the registrant of AllCity’s website, of copying and showcasing his work on their website’s blog section without Radic’s consent. Moreover, the defendants allegedly removed Radic’s copyright management information, in what he claims is a clear violation of his rights under the Copyright Act.

In a recent legal case involving Illinois Plaintiff, SAK Group, Inc. and Indiana Defendant, Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc., the complexities of trademark infringement and its legal implications came to the forefront.Pic-1-300x205

According to the complaint, SAK Group, Inc., is a renowned restaurant group operating under the trademark “Buttermilk Café.”  They initiated legal action against Blue Hill Hospitality, Inc., alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Plaintiff asserted that Blue Hill Hospitality’s use of the name “Buttermilk Pancake House” and its similar mark posed a threat to SAK’s established trademark rights, leading to confusion among consumers.

The complaint filed by SAK Group, Inc. encompassed various legal claims, including federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, false designation of origin, passing off, unfair competition, and violation of state laws related to deceptive trade practices. Each claim was supported by specific allegations regarding the similarities in marks, potential confusion among consumers, and the alleged willful nature of Blue Hill Hospitality’s actions.

In a recent lawsuit filed by Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. against Dr. Permagreen, LLC, Michael Edward Klott, and FTW Investments LLC, Perma-Green, an Indiana entity in the commercial lawn-care equipment industry, alleges that the defendants engaged in the deliberate and unauthorized use of Perma-Green’s trademark, PERMAGREEN. The complaint asserts that the defendants sold products under the name ‘Dr. Permagreen,’ which, according to the Plaintiff, bears a confusing similarity to Perma-Green’s mark, misleading consumers into falsely believing that the products were affiliated with Perma-Green. These allegations suggest that the defendants’ actions caused consumer confusion, negatively impacting Perma-Green’s reputation and raising concerns about product safety.Pic-2-300x78

If the Plaintiff’s allegations are proven true, this infringement not only violates federal laws, particularly the Lanham Act but also raises ethical questions surrounding fair competition and consumer protection. Regarding potential consequences, the relief sought by Perma-Green includes injunctions, damages, and legal fees, indicating the potential ramifications faced by the defendants for trademark infringement and deceptive practices.

The case has been assigned to Judge Philip P. Simon and Magistrate Judge John E. Martin, in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00341-PPS-JEM.

In the competitive world of mattresses and bedding, brand recognition and trust are paramount. Companies invest years in building their reputation, and protecting their intellectual property is crucial. Plaintiff Tempur Sealy International Inc. recently filed a lawsuit against Defendant Luxury Mattress & Furniture LLC, a suit highlighting the significance of safeguarding trademarks and brand integrity.

Tempur-Pedic-300x136According to the complaint, Tempur Sealy is a renowned name in the realm of premium mattresses. Known for its TEMPUR-PEDIC products, Tempur Sealy claims distinctiveness based on their high-quality materials and unparalleled comfort. The company states that they meticulously develop, manufacture, and market products under various trademarks such as TEMPUR, TEMPUR-PEDIC, and TEMPUR SEALY. In addition, they describe exhaustive efforts to maintain their brand’s integrity, from stringent quality control measures to an authorized network of retailers, attempting to ensure that customers receive authentic products and services.

The Plaintiff claims that on February 2, 2023, it notified the Defendant that it was terminating Luxury Mattress’s authorization to sell Tempur Sealy products.  The Plaintiff then alleges that Luxury Mattress continued to use the TEMPUR-PEDIC Marks in its Valparaiso, Indiana, retail location and on its website. Furthermore, Tempur Sealy asserts that the Defendant was using the TEMPUR-PEDIC Marks to advertise different products that were not associated with the Plaintiff’s product.

PhotoAfter an illustrious four-decade career dedicated to public service, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr., has declared his intent to retire in August 2024. His impending retirement from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana marks the culmination of a remarkable journey.

Judge Gotsch, with nearly twenty years as a judge and seven years in the federal judiciary, has left an enduring legacy. His tenure as St. Joseph Circuit Court Judge saw transformative initiatives, including repurposing an old jail into spaces for courts and community programs.

A trailblazer in advocating for domestic violence victims, Judge Gotsch pioneered the Civil Protective Order (CPO) Court, prioritizing their protection. His pivotal role in implementing the Odyssey Case Management System across Indiana courts underscores his commitment to efficient judicial processes.

Plaintiff OrthoPediatrics Corp. (“OP”) filed a Complaint against fellow Warsaw, Indiana corporation, WishBone Medical, Inc. (“WishBone”).  They are alleging patent infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,777,998, titled “Pediatric Long Bone Support or Fixation Plate.”

The complaint states that the Plaintiff (OP) has designed and patented an innovative orthopedic plate system explicitly made for pediatric patients. They claim that the patent in question addresses a longstanding issue in pediatric orthopedics—specifically adapting adult implants for use in children, which poses risks such as damaging the epiphyseal plate or stunting bone growth.

Picture-300x92The Plaintiff asserts that WishBone’s introduction of their “PRIMA™ Femoral Locking Plate System” infringes upon Patent 8,777,998 through alleged replication of at least three of its claimed features.  OP further asserts that in addition to manufacturing their own allegedly infringing product, WishBone also markets and sells the product.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based corporation, alleges ownership of exclusive distribution rights for broadcasting premier sporting events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC). Through agreements with copyright holders, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. claims they obtained authorization to exhibit UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cowboy.

Pic-300x300Defendants, comprising LNH, LLC operating in Burlington, Indiana as Burlington Pizza/The Barn, along with Neal D. Harmon and Loriann Harmon, allegedly exhibited UFC 246 at their commercial establishment without the required authorization from Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. The plaintiff claims that this action violated licensing requirements and involved unauthorized access to the Program through various means, including cable, satellite, or internet streams.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. asserts satellite and cable piracy violations under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, claiming that the defendants intercepted satellite signals or used unauthorized cable signals to broadcast the Program, contravening federal laws regulating such transmissions.  Joe Hand also Alleges infringement of its exclusive distribution rights under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501), contending that the defendants exhibited the copyrighted Program publicly without proper authorization, violating intellectual property laws.

Pic-300x113Hoagland, Indiana – A legal filing initiated by Davaus, LLC against S7 IP Holdings, LLC and Shawn Gengerke is a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. According to the complaint, Davaus seeks legal affirmation that their product, the Kernel Keeper™, does not infringe, is not covered by, and renders invalid the United States Patent No. 9,961,830 claimed by S7, specifically related to S7’s product called the “Harvest Sweep.” S7 alleged that the Kernel Keeper™ infringed on their patent and demanded Davaus cease its production and sale. Davaus states that they responded by explaining how their product differs from the patented claims, but S7 rejected this explanation and reiterated the demand to stop production.

Davaus contends that their product does not infringe upon S7’s patent and requests the court to rule that their product does not violate the patent, and that the patent itself is invalid and unenforceable. This legal action aims to prevent legal repercussions against Davaus based on the patent claimed by S7.

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Holly A. Brady and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins, in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00398-HAB-SLC.

Mulberry, Florida – Plaintiff ArrMaz Products Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. of Goshen, Indiana, alleging patent infringement related to their asphalt paving technologies covered by U.S. Patents Nos. 7,802,941 and 8,465,843. These patents are associated with ArrMaz’s BondTekk® bonded-paving technology, adopted by multiple states and contractors for creating safer and more durable roads.

Logo-300x143The original complaint states that Rieth-Riley Construction is also involved in asphalt paving services and operates in several Midwestern states where asphalt-paving projects are awarded through competitive bidding. In February 2022, the claim states, the Plaintiff notified Rieth-Riley that ArrMaz’s patents covered specific projects awarded to Rieth-Riley by the state of Indiana and offered a license for their use. However, ArrMaz claims that Rieth-Riley expressed an intention to ignore the patents and not obtain the necessary licenses before moving forward with the project.

ArrMaz alleges that Rieth-Riley not only infringed on their patents but also engaged in willful infringement by using and selling the patented technology. Therefore, ArrMaz is seeking a court injunction to prevent Rieth-Riley from using or selling their patented products without the proper licenses. Additionally, they are seeking a monetary award to cover damages, including the costs and expenses of the lawsuit.

Contact Information