Articles Posted in INSD News

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.

Pic2According 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.

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.

Picture1My 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.

Hiker Industries, LLC (“Hiker”) has filed a lawsuit against Hyk Outdoors LLC (“Hyk”), alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under both federal and state laws. The complaint focuses on the use of marks by Hyk that Hiker claims are confusingly similar to its own registered trademarks. Hiker has been in the business of designing and manufacturing customizable trailers for over a decade, earning a reputation for quality and durability. Hiker contends that Hyk’s use of the marks “HYK OUTDOORS” and “HYK DESIGN” has led to consumer confusion, with potential customers mistakenly associating Hyk’s products with Hiker.

The lawsuit asserts that Hyk, which began using its marks in 2020, is unfairly capitalizing on the reputation that Hiker has built with its own trademarks, specifically the “HIKER TRAILER” andPic-5 “HIKER DESIGN” marks. According to Hiker, its years of investment in the trailer business have led to the development of a strong brand identity, which is at risk due to the similarities between the two sets of marks. Hiker claims that this confusion has resulted in lost sales and damage to its reputation, as consumers may believe that Hyk’s products are affiliated with Hiker.

Hiker is the registered owner of the “HIKER TRAILER” and “HIKER DESIGN” marks, which are used in connection with trailers and related goods. These marks have been featured in advertising, on product labels, and on apparel, contributing to Hiker’s brand recognition. Hyk, a company formed in 2019, began using its similar marks more than a decade after Hiker had first established its own. Despite this timeline, Hiker claims that the use of these similar marks by Hyk has caused confusion in the marketplace, leading to harm for Hiker’s business.

Pic-4AWGI, LLC and Atlas Van Lines, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a lawsuit against Atlas Mover Group LLC (“AMG”) and United Best Moving LLC (“UBM”) (“Defendants”) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are unlawfully using the “Atlas” mark, which is associated with decades of goodwill and recognition in the moving and storage industry.

According to the complaint, Atlas Van Lines was founded in 1948 and has become a globally recognized brand, with over 430 independent agencies and partners in 140 countries. They own trademarks related to “Atlas,” which have been heavily promoted through advertising, online presence, and community engagement. Over the years, Atlas has built a reputation for high-quality service and earned substantial goodwill in its marks.

Defendants AMG and UBM are accused of using the “Atlas” name and logo on their website, and in their marketing materials. Plaintiffs argue that this usage creates confusion among consumers, who mistakenly believe AMG’s services are affiliated with Atlas Van Lines. Plaintiffs allege that this unauthorized use dilutes the distinctiveness of the Atlas Marks and harms their business reputation.

Pic-2-300x242Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical company known for developing innovative medicines and therapies, particularly in the radiopharmaceutical market. The company is taking steps to strengthen its position by filing lawsuits against competitors over alleged patent violations concerning its top cancer therapies, Pluvicto and Lutathera. These actions began in 2024 and involve Eli Lilly, its subsidiary, Point Biopharma, Lantheus, and Curium Pharma.

In June 2024, Novartis and the Purdue Research Foundation filed a lawsuit in Indiana, claiming that Lilly’s PNT2002 infringes on their U.S. Patent No. 10,624,970.  Because PNT2002 describes similar conjugates and methods to treat the same kind of cancer (prostate) that Pluvicto is designed to treat, Novartis alleges direct competition with their product.

Lilly and the other defendants have requested the Court dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it is not in direct competition, as PNT2002 is not yet ready for the market and may not even receive regulatory approval by June 2025.

Pic-1Plaintiff William Miller filed suit against Empire News, LLC (Defendant) for the unauthorized use of a copyrighted photograph depicting migrants being displaced from the Watson Hotel. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §1202(b)).

The Plaintiff asserts exclusive rights to the photograph in question, which he reports was first published on January 30, 2023, and later registered by the U.S. Copyright Office on April 1, 2023. Miller claims that the Defendant displayed this image on its website on January 30, 2023, without the proper permission or licensing, thereby violating copyright law.

Empire, LLC, is alleged to have profited from the unauthorized display, thus undermining the Plaintiff’s market for the photograph. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to implement adequate policies to verify copyright ownership, which indicates negligence in ensuring compliance with copyright law.

Mia Lind, the plaintiff and creator of the Delaware brand “Hot Girl Walk,” filed a lawsuit against Casey Springer, accusing Springer of infringing on her trademark with a local version of thepic-1 concept called “Hot Girl Walk Indianapolis.” Lind’s “Hot Girl Walk,” which originated during the pandemic, is a women’s-only mental health walk that has been trademarked and commercialized through merchandise and sponsorships.

Inspired by Lind, Springer launched a similar initiative in Indianapolis. Initially called “Hot Girl Walk Indy,” it was later rebranded as “Hot Walk Indy.” Lind’s lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, business disparagement, and defamation.

Springer contended that her initiative was distinct and non-commercial, designed as a free community event. She argued that Lind’s trademark protects specific brand elements but does not cover the broader concept of a group walk.

An Indiana federal judge has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit between Knauf Insulation Inc. and Johns Manville Corp. just days before trial. Chief U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt chose not to overturn previous rulings on claim construction, stating it would be against public interest and waste substantial efforts already put into the case.

On August 16, the two companies jointly requested dismissal of the 2015 lawsuit, which alleged that Johns Manville’s EasyFit and Flex-Glass insulation products infringed on seven Knauf patents. Although the case is dismissed, the court’s earlier rulings, including invalidation of six patents, remain in effect.CombinedPic

Judge Pratt argued that vacating prior rulings would not benefit the public and could encourage prolonged litigation. She cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership as precedent against overturning rulings after settlement.

Paris-based photographer Julien Pepy has filed a lawsuit against Angie’s List, Inc., also known as Angi, for alleged copyright infringement. The case, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, highlights the growing concerns around digital content use and copyright protections.

Julien Pepy, a professional photographer renowned for his distinctive images, claims that Angi, a major digital marketing company operating under the Instagram handle “@angi,” used his copyrighted photographs without permission. According to the complaint, Pepy’s works were displayed on Angi’s Instagram account in August 2023 without any authorization.

Photo
Pepy’s lawsuit alleges that Angi displayed three of his photographs—showcasing various angles and details of bathroom vanities—on its account. The complaint emphasizes that these images were not only displayed but were also distributed commercially, contradicting copyright laws that protect creators’ rights.

Lancaster, South CarolinaNutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (collectively known as “Nutramax”) have filed suit against Indiana company, Abumayyaleh Bros, LLC.  The Plaintiffs allege multiple intellectual property violations including trademark infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference with contractual relationships.

Pic-226x300According to the complaint, Nutramax contends that Abumayyaleh Bros, LLC is reselling Nutramax products, specifically their Proviable®-DC Digestive Health Supplement Capsules, on Amazon without authorization. The Plaintiffs are concerned that the products bear Nutramax’s well-known trademarks, such as PROVIABLE and NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, but do not adhere to the stringent storage, distribution, and customer support standards set by Nutramax for its authorized resellers.

Nutramax asserts that the defendants’ unauthorized use of their trademarks constitutes a trademark infringement violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). By selling products under the Nutramax Marks without authorization, the Plaintiffs claim the defendants are causing consumer confusion regarding the source and authenticity of the products.

Contact Information